Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-211518-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240605122106.23818-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <20240605122106.23818-2-brgl@bgdev.pl>
 <87h6e6qjuh.fsf@kernel.org> <CAMRc=MdiKxtnN+g92RUTXdOydaPV5M2u5iUdKyE2SNvDkdXAjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <871q5aqiei.fsf@kernel.org> <CAMRc=McacZMP-51hjH+d8=PVe+Wgw4a8xWcv0sRPLJKL_gP=KQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <87sexqoxm9.fsf@kernel.org> <CAMRc=McYAbhL5M1geYtf8LbgJG5x_+ZUFKXRuo7Vff_8ssNoUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <8db01c97-1cb2-4a86-abff-55176449e264@kernel.org> <CAMRc=Mer2HpuBLGiabNtSgSRduzrrtT1AtGoDXeHgYqavWXdrA@mail.gmail.com>
 <87ikyenx5c.fsf@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <87ikyenx5c.fsf@kernel.org>
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 14:52:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMRc=MdPQu-r4aaeag9apYP1-FoQ2-_GAk_qnHqDz-jWibRDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/2] dt-bindings: net: wireless: qcom,ath11k: describe
 the ath11k on QCA6390
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>, "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, 
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, 
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, 
	Jeff Johnson <jjohnson@kernel.org>, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, 
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, 
	ath11k@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	ath12k@lists.infradead.org, 
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 2:49=E2=80=AFPM Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org> wrote=
:
>
> Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> writes:
>
> >> >> Sure, I don't need DT but that's not my point. My point is why requ=
ire
> >> >> these supplies for _all_ devices having PCI id 17cb:1101 (ie. QCA63=
90)
> >> >> then clearly there are such devices which don't need it? To me that=
's
> >> >> bad design and, if I'm understanding correctly, prevents use of
> >> >> qcom,ath11k-calibration-variant property. To me having the supplies
> >> >> optional in DT is more approriate.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > We require them because *they are physically there*.
> >>
> >> I understand that for all known DT QCA6390 hardware, the supplies shou=
ld
> >> be provided thus they should be required. If in the future we have
> >> different design or we represent some pluggable PCI card, then:
> >> 1. Probably that PCI card does not need power sequencing, thus no DT
> >> description,
> >> 2. If still needs power sequencing, you can always amend bindings and
> >> un-require the supplies.
> >>
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Krzysztof
> >>
> >
> > Kalle, does the above answer your questions? Are these bindings good to=
 go?
>
> To me most important is that we are on the same page that in some cases
> (eg. with M.2 boards) the supplies can be optional and we can update the
> bindings doc once such need arises (but we don't make any changes right
> now). Based on point 2 from Krzysztof I think we all agree, right?
>
> Just making sure: if we later change the supplies optional does that
> create any problems with backwards compatibility? It's important that
> updates go smoothly.

No, you can always relax the requirements alright. It's only when you
make them more strict that you'll run into backward compatibility
issues.

Bart