Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-5822-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <fd26ce4a-a9f3-4ada-8d46-ed36fb2456ca@freebox.fr>
 <5cdad89c-282a-4df5-a286-b8404bc4dd81@freebox.fr> <252618e8-9e80-4774-a96c-caa7f838ef01@linaro.org>
 <502322f1-4f66-4922-bc4e-46bacac23410@linaro.org> <0ca1221b-b707-450f-877d-ca07a601624d@freebox.fr>
 <CAA8EJppeREj-0g9oGCzzKx5ywhg1mgmJR1q8yvXKN7N45do1Xg@mail.gmail.com> <91031ed0-104a-4752-8b1e-0dbe15ebf201@freebox.fr>
In-Reply-To: <91031ed0-104a-4752-8b1e-0dbe15ebf201@freebox.fr>
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 17:12:29 +0300
Message-ID: <CAA8EJpooJLbV+nVWedru=r6fascd8ZxKumiMm_iyzzJwyQ-tig@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: msm8998: set qcom,no-msa-ready-indicator
 for wifi
To: Marc Gonzalez <mgonzalez@freebox.fr>
Cc: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>, Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>, 
	Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com>, ath10k <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>, 
	wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>, DT <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, 
	MSM <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, 
	Pierre-Hugues Husson <phhusson@freebox.fr>, Arnaud Vrac <avrac@freebox.fr>, 
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>, Jami Kettunen <jamipkettunen@gmail.com>, 
	Jeffrey Hugo <jeffrey.l.hugo@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 16:05, Marc Gonzalez <mgonzalez@freebox.fr> wrote:
>
> On 02/04/2024 17:55, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 18:31, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> >
> >> So, if I understand correctly, I take this to mean that I should:
> >>
> >> 1) DELETE the qcom,no-msa-ready-indicator boolean property,
> >> 2) ADD a "qcom,msm8998-wifi" (name OK?) compatible,
> >
> > I'd say, this is not correct. There is no "msm8998-wifi".
>
> Can you explain what you mean by:
> 'There is no "msm8998-wifi".' ?
>
> Do you mean that: this compatible string does not exist?
> (I am proposing that it be created.)
>
> Or do you mean that: "msm8998-wifi" is a bad name?

I mean, it is qcom,wcn3990-wifi, because the chip is wcn3990.

> And these strings in ath11k:
>
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ath11k.yaml:      - qcom,ipq8074-wifi
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ath11k.yaml:      - qcom,ipq6018-wifi
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ath11k.yaml:      - qcom,wcn6750-wifi
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ath11k.yaml:      - qcom,ipq5018-wifi

I must admit, I don't know the IPQ product naming (it well might be
that it is both the name of the SoC and the WiFI SoC).

>
> > I'd say, we should take a step back and actually verify how this was
> > handled in the vendor kernel.
>
> In our commercial product, we use the ath10k driver in the vendor kernel (v4.4 r38-rel).

I see.

> It looks like Jeff has already performed the code analysis
> wrt vendor vs mainline (including user-space tools).

From his message it looks like we are expected to get MSA READY even on msm8998.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry