On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 06:37:08PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > Marc Gonzalez <mgonzalez@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > As mentioned in my other reply, there are several msm8998-based > > devices affected by this issue. Is it not appropriate to consider > > a kernel-based work-around? > > Sorry, not following you here. But I'll try to answer anyway: > > I have understood that Device Tree is supposed to describe hardware, not > software. This is why having this property in DT does not look right > place for this. For example, if the ath10k firmware is fixed then DT > would have to be changed even though nothing changed in hardware. But of > course DT maintainers have the final say. I dunno, if the firmware affects the functionality of the hardware in a way that cannot be detected from the operating system at runtime how else is it supposed to deal with that? The devicetree is supposed to describe hardware, yes, but at a certain point the line between firmware and hardware is invisible :) Not describing software is mostly about not using it to determine software policy in the operating system.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
