Re: [PATCH v2 ath-current 2/2] dt-bindings: net: wireless: ath11k-pci: remove obsolete firmware-name property
Miaoqing Pan <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.infradead.lists.ath11k,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-wireless |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 1/19/2026 3:08 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 19/01/2026 02:34, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >> >> >> On 1/13/2026 3:28 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 14/12/2025 03:52, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >>>> The firmware-name property was introduced to allow end-users and >>>> integrators to select usecase specific firmware for the WCN6855. >>>> However, specifying firmware for an M.2 WLAN module in the Device >>>> Tree is not appropriate. Instead, this functionality will be handled >>>> within the ath11k driver. >>>> >>>> The driver has removed all support for firmware-name, and no upstream >>>> Device Tree files reference this property. Therefore, this patch >>>> removes the property from the binding and marks it as obsolete. >>> >>> No, it does not mark it obsolete. Point me to the place. >>> >>>> >>>> This is a DT ABI-breaking change, but safe since there are no in-tree >>>> users. >>> >>> It's not safe. What about my board using this WiFi? Or Mr. foo's board? >>> >>> Still NAK, you did not improve it. >>> >>> >> >> I think it’s necessary to clarify the background here. As you can see >> from the git log, all changes related to ath11k firmware-name were >> submitted by me, and the intention was to allow the lemans-evk, >> monaco-evk, and hamoa-iot-evk boards to specify dedicated firmware for >> the WCN6855 Wi-Fi chip. However, the Wi-Fi‑related DTS nodes for these >> boards have never been submitted upstream, because adding a >> firmware-name property for an M.2 device is not appropriate and would be >> difficult for the community to accept. Therefore, the original approach >> was abandoned. > > You added new ABI which can be used by anyone and your commit did not > help me to understand the impact on other users of this ABI. > >> >> The alternative solution is to propose a static lookup table that maps >> device compatibles to firmware names. As a result, we have not submitted >> any DTS patches adding firmware-name for those boards to date. This is >> why I believe that removing firmware-name from the bindings is safe. >> >> If this explanation is still not sufficient, please let me know what >> additional steps are required for accepting these two patches. Thank you. > > You need to deprecate the property and keep the ABI backwards compatible. > Ok, will update in v3.