On 2/29/2024 10:40 AM, Conor Dooley wrote: > 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. FWIW I've compared ath10k to the out-of-tree Android driver and there are discrepancies in this area. I've asked the development team that supports ath10k to provide a recommendation. /jeff
