From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7B4DC4361B for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 18:15:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 703C923877 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 18:15:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726292AbgLGSPn (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:15:43 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47178 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725814AbgLGSPn (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:15:43 -0500 Received: from mail-il1-x143.google.com (mail-il1-x143.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::143]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7911C061749 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 10:15:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-il1-x143.google.com with SMTP id 2so9951787ilg.9 for ; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 10:15:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hHq/xb/pv02EeD0pGYHlEothdFGwrB90EzBmPugYcJk=; b=UJk5hX3f/G45RB0dkq6NiZ9xtAqfaiiCloepRguEu/toNsMFu9fzC2vlYRnhXYDgrY 9kNzZVKSt6cdZbZqbosNM8PlPhPLhlrsgMBWynGHmRUbinruP9SnWdjX1cWyvZKDNXge 4ndH0FDCK69tg5mKFiYTL5iPbHTMiTkRBq9yo= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hHq/xb/pv02EeD0pGYHlEothdFGwrB90EzBmPugYcJk=; b=U3oqbuizgce57vs8yuDHlV9PQ781Fj4f03rvM7XmNVkE1Bo2HmNHUBmeaxpj0jDVgH BtEgETpIJXAtwxLf15Wozr66QbjHrlAv7osFD6tc0uK3CuZn3GXA2JG64Nt1hucHJMj1 nBmNxK4jZBvlnfYPvolRJ3FJ6KF1V5OH2TtsC/MKbyRm56UiP/mJcTe8aVE430dDs24F 6fGeYQHYBpHoOCTmsMio0Rhdin+AQ679NQofBugetlQ/Y4ZAZtyrNbk8C7UiZR0QM7Fn lF6orOrbq47KAQw+UCbhLgXcoVNcp3PZi9dyy5DJoFWifakDbmxjpCfmJNw81gG/3MsJ Hapg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ahNfGVEnooWEQiFMVClPJjTNY0IqSKi9qcaTr2G7csT9TjBTq jusXbb9Xc3bgSa9Kmpue2h3U6Mf19O6xc+hkCpP6HA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxuUl78F1hJprmwBVxcZo32iPF/WVnvcbVvMQRF7A3m+Ae5s+gUqX9bce5XoCfml84l1vnwZkm4PJJACuAUaKc= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:a:: with SMTP id h10mr6300702ilr.235.1607364902407; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 10:15:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201112200906.991086-1-kuabhs@chromium.org> <20201112200856.v2.1.Ia526132a366886e3b5cf72433d0d58bb7bb1be0f@changeid> <002401d6c242$d78f2140$86ad63c0$@codeaurora.org> <002d01d6c2dd$4386d880$ca948980$@codeaurora.org> <004301d6c968$12ef1b10$38cd5130$@codeaurora.org> In-Reply-To: From: Abhishek Kumar Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 10:14:51 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] ath10k: add option for chip-id based BDF selection To: Doug Anderson Cc: Rakesh Pillai , Kalle Valo , LKML , ath10k , Brian Norris , linux-wireless , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , netdev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, > > (no changes since v1) > > I think you need to work on the method you're using to generate your > patches. There are most definitely changes since v1. You described > them in your cover letter (which you don't really need for a singleton > patch) instead of here. I agree, this was not intentional, I will fix this in the upcoming patches. On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 7:34 AM Doug Anderson wrote: > > Hi, > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 3:33 AM Rakesh Pillai wrote: > > > > > What I'm trying to say is this. Imagine that: > > > > > > a) the device tree has the "variant" property. > > > > > > b) the BRD file has two entries, one for "board-id" (1) and one for > > > "board-id + chip-id" (2). It doesn't have one for "board-id + chip-id > > > + variant" (3). > > > > > > With your suggestion we'll see the "variant" property in the device > > > tree. That means we'll search for (1) and (3). (3) isn't there, so > > > we'll pick (1). ...but we really should have picked (2), right? > > > > Do we expect board-2.bin to not be populated with the bdf with variant field (if its necessary ?) > > The whole fact that there is a fallback to begin with implies that > there can be a mismatch between the board-2.bin and the device tree > file. Once we accept that there can be a mismatch, it seems good to > try all 3 fallbacks in order. > > > Seems fine for me, if we have 2 fallback names if that is needed. > OK, sounds good. So hopefully Abhishek can post a v3 based on what's > in and you can confirm you're good with > it there? I agree, with this patch there can be mismatch between what's provided in the Board file and what required board name we are generating, so three calls are needed. So in a sense, we want to keep the V1 patch with fix to reuse the same BDF. I am making V3 changes and will address and push that out. Thanks Abhishek