On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 05:21:37PM +0100, Marc Gonzalez wrote: > On 29/02/2024 19:40, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 06:37:08PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > > > >> Marc Gonzalez wrote: > >> > >>> 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. > > Recording here what was discussed a few days ago on IRC: > > If all msm8998 boards are affected, then it /might/ make sense > to work around the issue for ALL msm8998 boards: > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c > b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c > index 0776e79b25f3a..9da06da518fb6 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c > @@ -1076,6 +1076,9 @@ int ath10k_qmi_init(struct ath10k *ar, u32 msa_size) > qmi->ar = ar; > ar_snoc->qmi = qmi; > > + if (of_device_is_compatible(of_root, "qcom,msm8998") > + qmi->no_point_in_waiting_for_msa_ready_indicator = true; > + > if (of_property_read_bool(dev->of_node, "qcom,msa-fixed-perm")) > qmi->msa_fixed_perm = true; > > > Thus, anyone porting an msm8998 board to mainline would automatically > get the work-around, without having to hunt down the feature bit, > and tweak the FW files.
How come the root node comes into this, don't you have a soc-specific compatible for the integration on this SoC? (I am assuming that this is not the SDIO variant, given then it'd not be fixed to this particular implementation)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
