Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: net: wireless: ath10k: add qcom,no-msa-ready-indicator prop

From: Marc Gonzalez <mgonzalez@freebox.fr>
To: Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com>,
	Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>, Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
Cc: ath10k <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>,
	wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	DT <devicetree@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>,
	Jami Kettunen <jamipkettunen@gmail.com>,
	Jeffrey Hugo <quic_jhugo@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: net: wireless: ath10k: add qcom,no-msa-ready-indicator prop
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 16:29:27 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2f588948-0261-4985-91e8-d5060e673cd9@freebox.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c48ead11-0e2a-4066-b324-84f802215c9a@quicinc.com>

On 29/02/2024 20:46, Jeff Johnson wrote:

> On 2/29/2024 10:40 AM, Conor Dooley wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 06:37:08PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>
>>> Marc Gonzalez writes:
>>
>>>> As mentioned in my other reply, there are several msm8998-based
>>>> devices affected by this issue. Is it not appropriate to consider
>>>> a kernel-based work-around?
>>>
>>> Sorry, not following you here. But I'll try to answer anyway:
>>>
>>> I have understood that Device Tree is supposed to describe hardware, not
>>> software. This is why having this property in DT does not look right
>>> place for this. For example, if the ath10k firmware is fixed then DT
>>> would have to be changed even though nothing changed in hardware. But of
>>> course DT maintainers have the final say.
>>
>> I dunno, if the firmware affects the functionality of the hardware in a
>> way that cannot be detected from the operating system at runtime how
>> else is it supposed to deal with that?
>> The devicetree is supposed to describe hardware, yes, but at a certain
>> point the line between firmware and hardware is invisible :)
>> Not describing software is mostly about not using it to determine
>> software policy in the operating system.
> 
> FWIW I've compared ath10k to the out-of-tree Android driver and there
> are discrepancies in this area. I've asked the development team that
> supports ath10k to provide a recommendation.

Hello Jeff,

Have you heard back from the dev team?

Do they confirm that an issue involving missing MSA_READY notifications
was ever noticed?

What devices were affected? (All msm8998? A subset of msm8998?)

Was the issue eventually fixed?
(Probably fixed, otherwise newer devices would be affected)

-- 
Regards.