WMI version handling

Kalle Valo kvalo at qca.qualcomm.com
Fri Sep 5 06:32:15 PDT 2014

Michal Kazior <michal.kazior at tieto.com> writes:

> On 3 September 2014 17:00, Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com> wrote:
>> On 09/02/2014 11:14 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>> Hi,
> [...]
>>> Also I have been thinking that using firmware feature bits (for example
>>> version is not the best way. I think it's easier to manage all this if
>>> we have a u32 FW IE to provide WMI version. IIRC Ben was suggesting this
>>> at some point.
>>> Example:
>>> enum ath10k_fw_wmi_version {
>>>       ATH10K_FW_WMI_VERSION_MAIN = 0,
>>>       ATH10K_FW_WMI_VERSION_10_1 = 1,
>>>       ATH10K_FW_WMI_VERSION_10_2 = 2,
>>> }
>>> And then wmi.c would set correct interface based on this version.
>> I am happy with the current flags, it seems to work well enough.
> I'm actually okay with this but I'd actually throw out the "wmi"
> string from it and leave out just "ath10k_fw_version". I've recently
> discovered some minor HTT discrepancies between fw branches so we
> might want to use the version tag to pick HTT "backend" as well..

I'm again thinking that we should have a separate enum for the HTT
version. So that the firmware interface is defined with WMI version, HTT
version and feature flags (which define smaller changes in the

Kalle Valo

More information about the ath10k mailing list