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=-7.2 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 EB075C4361A for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 15:34:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8907C206F9 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 15:34:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728924AbgLCPes (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2020 10:34:48 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50166 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726610AbgLCPes (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2020 10:34:48 -0500 Received: from mail-vs1-xe43.google.com (mail-vs1-xe43.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e43]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 151E9C061A51 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 07:34:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vs1-xe43.google.com with SMTP id q5so1478582vsg.0 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 07:34:08 -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=h6bUmmhNs5Vo0iuri/gifDqZRZWxy1kGAo1J9lB1K5k=; b=D0ie8/h3FBLr6GsJocONE1JbQgocKTLMtMzcvLZ4m0y7cnANQLWYb2PicTVkU3CHWU 0xhY3CUtX4DW0z+8e0aqlOnA0qQynUINmANChrlAvRpPTKilDW7S8pl1Ya7o5kR9BFVg gJdorF74HsyAZkpPn12nGzaqdkO24ic6ate64= 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=h6bUmmhNs5Vo0iuri/gifDqZRZWxy1kGAo1J9lB1K5k=; b=q3eXSwzJiYx6F2Zw3laHQpLYys7BKCedPPXZgmzYUjaVQLtcbdduETIqTWm/SmmmZt Q68g8TS9fZhxZG4+oCsq9vh7/Fm4DtJYZlYDgQWDNtfsHWjKB+XX/H2PwqEK9wiEZPzp vy16AsrboaMxOH2UoFqwTS0T8uHJyBeSAYafcRdzv0pg4ZBmnx4xh/fTsjFhnFr5yfqp zdGHi3hRw5Hpe0DpknDvGkX56jFjRIpoy8kzkWqfq8g/qNjmy0RiAgAATZCsBEZrfM/H BDVs7XHjjhGKX3hEoDABhs8UiAEAfRZI9rHXo9PRiA7TaAN3w+XvvfTnmmB5yrIU9QL5 EuzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530PaoJdOpa3YTwDf+dz8LSiNBTEufW9j2r6uTbbZ185qJFZwCG5 tYEQ+XwmEuJaX9wPiWtKTJB7BbUkRlZMSQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzgBKsWfIPmCCBFsCdHZ61X/jIIAAGmBQiO85tWkLPNwyUgP6I9SCn9Hk+kdKB4zAQgsa7Gsw== X-Received: by 2002:a67:cd16:: with SMTP id u22mr2725795vsl.7.1607009646748; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 07:34:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vs1-f46.google.com (mail-vs1-f46.google.com. [209.85.217.46]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z24sm128434uar.5.2020.12.03.07.34.05 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Dec 2020 07:34:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vs1-f46.google.com with SMTP id b23so1440648vsp.9 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 07:34:05 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a67:8c41:: with SMTP id o62mr2741810vsd.49.1607009645158; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 07:34:05 -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: <004301d6c968$12ef1b10$38cd5130$@codeaurora.org> From: Doug Anderson Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 07:33:52 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] ath10k: add option for chip-id based BDF selection To: Rakesh Pillai Cc: Abhishek Kumar , 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, 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? -Doug