On 29/02/2024 19:40, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 06:37:08PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > >> Marc Gonzalez wrote: >> >>> 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. Recording here what was discussed a few days ago on IRC: If all msm8998 boards are affected, then it /might/ make sense to work around the issue for ALL msm8998 boards: diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c index 0776e79b25f3a..9da06da518fb6 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c @@ -1076,6 +1076,9 @@ int ath10k_qmi_init(struct ath10k *ar, u32 msa_size) qmi->ar = ar; ar_snoc->qmi = qmi; + if (of_device_is_compatible(of_root, "qcom,msm8998") + qmi->no_point_in_waiting_for_msa_ready_indicator = true; + if (of_property_read_bool(dev->of_node, "qcom,msa-fixed-perm")) qmi->msa_fixed_perm = true; Thus, anyone porting an msm8998 board to mainline would automatically get the work-around, without having to hunt down the feature bit, and tweak the FW files. -- Regards
