[PATCH] ath10k: fix htt t2h message conflicts among firmware revisions

[Michal Kazior]

On 19 March 2015 at 10:32, Kalle Valo <kvalo at qca.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> Michal Kazior <michal.kazior at tieto.com> writes:
>
>>> When I was adding WMI_OP_VERSION, my idea was that we will add similar
>>> version for HTT as well once we need it. But I guess this is good enough
>>> for now, we can add HTT_OP_VERSION later if more changes are needed.
>>
>> Maybe it should be renamed to OP_VERSION (drop the WMI_) or BRANCH_ID
>> or something else?
>>
>> It's not like HTT wasn't diverging. It was. However only WMI ABI was
>> seeing major breakage that needed taking care of. HTT changes were
>> small enough and could be ignored until now.
>
> I'm a bit worried that having one id for everything will be more
> difficult to maintain, that's why I created WMI_OP_VERSION in the first
> place. IMHO it's lot cleaner codewise to have one id for WMI interface
> and one id for HTT (eg. HTT_OP_VERSION). What do you think?

Currently both WMI and HTT seem to be developed in tandem within their
own branches. HTT_OP_VERSION would make sense if you assume HTT/WMI
development will be developed in parallel branches.

Would that even make sense from _any_ perspective? Current branching
model seems to be based on per-purpose branching and isolation. The
thinking behind this might be this allows better parallelization of
efforts between teams and tasks. If my assertion is correct then both
master-be-all branching and independent WMI/HTT branching stands in
conflict with the per-purpose branch isolation so a single
OP_VERSION/BRANCH_ID should suffice for ath10k.

With this htt conflict patch WMI_OP_VERSION is already being treated
as OP_VERSION effectively (and thus change the meaning of it).

Would it be much of a problem to re-rename OP_VERSION and introduce
HTT_OP_VERSION later? Hmm..


Michał