icenowy@xxxxxxx writes: >>>>> > > Like I asked already last time, AFAICS there is no upstream xr819 >>>>> > > wireless driver in drivers/net/wireless directory. Do we still >>>> accept >>>>> > > bindings like this for out-of-tree drivers? >>>>> > >>>>> > See esp8089. >>>>> > >>>>> > There's also no in-tree driver for it. >>>>> >>>>> The question is whether we should. The above might be a precedent, >>>> but it >>>>> may not necessarily be the way to go. The commit message for esp8089 >>>> seems >>>>> to hint that there is intent to have an in-tree driver: >>>>> >>>>> """ >>>>> Note that at this point there only is an out of tree driver for >>>> this >>>>> hardware, there is no clear timeline / path for merging this. >>>> Still >>>>> I believe it would be good to specify the binding for this in >>>> tree >>>>> now, so that any future migration to an in tree driver will not >>>> cause >>>>> compatiblity issues. >>>>> >>>>> Cc: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@xxxxxxxx> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> """ >>>>> >>>>> Regardless the bindings are in principle independent of the kernel >>>> and just >>>>> describing hardware. I think there have been discussions to move the >>>>> bindings to their own repository, but apparently it was decided >>>> otherwise. >>>> >>>> Yeah, I guess especially how it could be merged with the cw1200 >>>> driver >>>> would be very relevant to that commit log. >>> >>> The cw1200 driver seems to still have some legacy platform >>> data. Maybe they should also be convert to DT. >>> (Or maybe compatible = "allwinner,xr819" is enough, as >>> xr819 is a specified variant of cw1200 family) >> >> Ah, so the upstream cw1200 driver supports xr819? Has anyone tested >> that? Or does cw1200 more changes than just adding the DT support? > > The support of XR819 in CW1200 driver is far more difficult than I > imagined -- the codedrop used in the mainlined CW1200 driver seems to > be so old that it's before XR819 (which seems to be based on CW1160), > and there's a large number of problems to adapt it to a modern CW1200 > variant. > > P.S. could you apply this device tree binding patch now? As I haven't seen any consensus that applying bindings document for out-of-tree drivers is ok so at least I'm not taking this. Though not sure what DT maintainers are planning to do. -- Kalle Valo
