> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 9:48 PM
> To: Rakesh Pillai <pillair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> ath10k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath10k: Use bdf calibration variant for snoc targets
>
> "Rakesh Pillai" <pillair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> >> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c
> >> > @@ -576,6 +576,8 @@ static int
> ath10k_qmi_cap_send_sync_msg(struct
> >> ath10k_qmi *qmi)
> >> > if (resp->chip_info_valid) {
> >> > qmi->chip_info.chip_id = resp->chip_info.chip_id;
> >> > qmi->chip_info.chip_family =
resp->chip_info.chip_family;
> >> > + } else {
> >> > + qmi->chip_info.chip_id = 0xFF;
> >> > }
> >>
> >> So you hard code chip_id to 0xff if it's not valid. Is it 100%
> >> guaranteed that there never will be a chip id with 0xff?
> >
> > 0x0 and 0xff are invalid chip id and are are not used.
> > If the chip_id read fails, we fallback to the default board data.
> > 0xff is used to go to the default board data (Also this is in alignment
with
> > the current implementation of board_id)
> >
> > Does that make sense ?
>
> I'm a bit hesitant, over the years I have seen cases so many cases where
> "foo is not used anywhere" and later that foo is actually used
> somewhere. 0xff means that there's only 254 different values, but I
> guess there are not that many chip ids? So a chip id is very different
> from a board id, right?
Yes that's correct.
Chip id is already being used in case of qca6174 (pci bus)
We are bringing this to snoc bus chipset (WCN3990)
>
> --
> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingp
> atches
