On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 04:07:01PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 08:33:02AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > And yes, from what you've told me here it would make sense to make the
> > WCN chip a subnode of this SoC node instead of a phandle connecting the
> > two.
>
> I could begrudgingly agree with that.
...
>
> wifi: wifi@18800000 {
> compatible = "qcom,sdm845-wifi";
> reg = <...>
> clocks = <...>
> vdd-0.8-cx-mx-supply = <...>
> ... interrupts, etc. ...
>
> rf { // I don't know what to call this node. Suggestions
> // welcome.
> compatible = "qcom,wcn3990-wifi";
> vdd-1.8-xo-supply = <...>;
> vdd-1.3-rfa-supply = <...>;
> vdd-3.3-ch0-supply = <...>;
> };
> };
By the way...I realize one reason why I've been "begrudging" on this:
the single-node binding was already reviewed and merged upstream as of
v4.18:
ae316c4cbba2 dt: bindings: add bindings for wcn3990 wifi block
It seems like a lot of needless churn to rewrite the entire binding,
only to
* make the usage of these regulators a little clearer and
* possibly help distinguish different variants of WCN3990 usage (e.g.,
on different SoCs) -- I don't even know how different "WCN3990" looks
when used on something non-SDM845.
Even if the second bullet point is important, we could fix this by a
more judicious use of 'compatible', rather than inventing whole new
nodes.
Regards,
Brian
