Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-5871-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Cc: Marc Gonzalez <mgonzalez@freebox.fr>,  Konrad Dybcio
 <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,  Krzysztof Kozlowski
 <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: msm8998: set
 qcom,no-msa-ready-indicator for wifi
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>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 14:57:45 +0300
In-Reply-To: <CAA8EJppeREj-0g9oGCzzKx5ywhg1mgmJR1q8yvXKN7N45do1Xg@mail.gmail.com>
	(Dmitry Baryshkov's message of "Tue, 2 Apr 2024 18:55:56 +0300")
Message-ID: <87ttkh49xi.fsf@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux)
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> writes:

>> 3) ADD that compatible to the wifi node in msm8998.dtsi
>>    compatible = "qcom,wcn3990-wifi", "qcom,msm8998-wifi";
>> 4) In the driver, set qmi->fake_msa_ready_indicator to true if we
>> detect "qcom,msm8998-wifi"
>>
>> And this approach would be acceptable to both ath10k & DT maintainers?
>
> I'd say, we should take a step back and actually verify how this was
> handled in the vendor kernel.

One comment related to this: usually vendor driver and firmware branches
go "hand in hand", meaning that a version of driver supports only one
specific firmware branch. And there can be a lot of branches. So even if
one branch might have a check for something specific, there are no
guarantees what the other N+1 branches do :/

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches