From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com ([74.125.82.51]:38549 "EHLO mail-wm0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751385AbcF0O7O (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:59:14 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id r201so119322780wme.1 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 07:59:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160627125709.GF1113@leverpostej> References: <20160623174536.5967-1-martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> <20160623174536.5967-2-martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> <20160623175809.GA31170@leverpostej> <20160627125709.GF1113@leverpostej> From: Martin Blumenstingl Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:58:53 +0200 Message-ID: (sfid-20160627_165923_417540_63AAB8D2) Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] Documentation: dt: net: add ath9k wireless device binding To: Mark Rutland Cc: ath9k-devel@qca.qualcomm.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org, nbd@nbd.name, chunkeey@googlemail.com, robh+dt@kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: >> > Please find a better way to identify relevant FW. What exactly affects >> > which FW can be used, or would ideally be used? Are different FWs >> > required for the same HW in some contexts? >> > >> > Can we not figure out the relevant FW names in the driver based on some >> > identification mechanism (e.g. a more thoroughly defined set of >> > compatible strings)? >> The only way of auto-detecting a "correct" name would be via >> dev_name() (with some prefix this could give something like >> ath9k-pci-0000:00:0e.0.bin). > > That may work, if the above is not an option. I would also prefer this (Felix' email already contains an explanation why this way is preferred and I fully agree with him). >> >> +- qca,check-eeprom-endianness: Allow checking the EEPROM endianness and >> >> + swapping of the EEPROM data if required >> > >> > CAn we not simply always do this? >> I've asked myself this question as well, but unfortunately some >> manufacturers ship the EEPROM data with incorrect endianness magic. >> Thus I decided to stay consistent with ath9k_platform_data which also >> has a boolean (which defaults to false). > > Ah. It's probably worth a note in the binding that this is not always > safe, and should only be set if the eeprom is known to have valid > endianness magic. > > It would also be worth specifying teh behaviour in the absence of this > property. noted, I will fix this in the next round >> >> >> +- qca,disable-2ghz: Disables the 2.4GHz band, even if enabled in the EEPROM >> >> +- qca,disable-5ghz: Disables the 5GHz band, even if enabled in the EEPROM >> > >> > When/why would these be necessary? >> sometimes a manufacturer (accidentally) leaves both bands enabled in >> the EEPROM data,while the RF hardware is only suitable for one of both >> bands. The same settings exist in ath9k_platform_data, serving exactly >> the same purpose > > Ok. Can we invert these instead (i.e. describe when the feature is > available)? e.g. qca,supports-2ghz. we could invert these, but I think the "disable" logic was chosen with a good reason: the ath9k calibration data already contains the information which bands are enabled/disabled. Enabling a band via devicetree / platform data is not possible, because that would mean we would have to pass additional calibration data for this band. The only use-case where these disable-Xghz properties are used is when the device vendor forgot to disable one of the bands. I can improve the documentation for this one, but I would prefer to stay with the disable naming/logic Martin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Blumenstingl Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:58:53 +0200 Subject: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] Documentation: dt: net: add ath9k wireless device binding In-Reply-To: <20160627125709.GF1113@leverpostej> References: <20160623174536.5967-1-martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> <20160623174536.5967-2-martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> <20160623175809.GA31170@leverpostej> <20160627125709.GF1113@leverpostej> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: >> > Please find a better way to identify relevant FW. What exactly affects >> > which FW can be used, or would ideally be used? Are different FWs >> > required for the same HW in some contexts? >> > >> > Can we not figure out the relevant FW names in the driver based on some >> > identification mechanism (e.g. a more thoroughly defined set of >> > compatible strings)? >> The only way of auto-detecting a "correct" name would be via >> dev_name() (with some prefix this could give something like >> ath9k-pci-0000:00:0e.0.bin). > > That may work, if the above is not an option. I would also prefer this (Felix' email already contains an explanation why this way is preferred and I fully agree with him). >> >> +- qca,check-eeprom-endianness: Allow checking the EEPROM endianness and >> >> + swapping of the EEPROM data if required >> > >> > CAn we not simply always do this? >> I've asked myself this question as well, but unfortunately some >> manufacturers ship the EEPROM data with incorrect endianness magic. >> Thus I decided to stay consistent with ath9k_platform_data which also >> has a boolean (which defaults to false). > > Ah. It's probably worth a note in the binding that this is not always > safe, and should only be set if the eeprom is known to have valid > endianness magic. > > It would also be worth specifying teh behaviour in the absence of this > property. noted, I will fix this in the next round >> >> >> +- qca,disable-2ghz: Disables the 2.4GHz band, even if enabled in the EEPROM >> >> +- qca,disable-5ghz: Disables the 5GHz band, even if enabled in the EEPROM >> > >> > When/why would these be necessary? >> sometimes a manufacturer (accidentally) leaves both bands enabled in >> the EEPROM data,while the RF hardware is only suitable for one of both >> bands. The same settings exist in ath9k_platform_data, serving exactly >> the same purpose > > Ok. Can we invert these instead (i.e. describe when the feature is > available)? e.g. qca,supports-2ghz. we could invert these, but I think the "disable" logic was chosen with a good reason: the ath9k calibration data already contains the information which bands are enabled/disabled. Enabling a band via devicetree / platform data is not possible, because that would mean we would have to pass additional calibration data for this band. The only use-case where these disable-Xghz properties are used is when the device vendor forgot to disable one of the bands. I can improve the documentation for this one, but I would prefer to stay with the disable naming/logic Martin