new "[1/2] ath10k: Try to get mac-address from dts"

[Ansuel Smith]

>
> On 28/10/2021 20:57, Ansuel Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> The "[1/2] ath10k: Try to get mac-address from dts" patch
> >> will need a respin, so it can apply cleanly.
> >>
> >> Is Anyone interested? If not, I can take a shot at it on Saturday.
> >>
> >
> > A refreshed patch is applied to atk10k-ct repo so it would be good to
> > have the same patch on normal ath10k. Many router would benefit
> > from that.
>
> Found it!
>
> https://github.com/greearb/ath10k-ct/commit/e6a7d5b5b834737cd12e357b5efdc2e42d923bf6.patch
>
> Hmm, Author is now "Ben" and the whole commit message is gone.
> Now, adding the commit message back from your original patch
> is not a problem, but the missing "Signed-off-by" from him and
> you might be.
> ...
>

Let's use the patch in ath10k. Seems cleaner and ready to merge.
(probe_defer to handle)
https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/blob/master/package/kernel/mac80211/patches/ath10k/984-ath10k-Try-to-get-mac-address-from-dts.patch

> But then, do we need it? Because there might be the option to extend
> device_get_mac_address() instead?! ...
>

That is also my concern... It would be good to add support for nvmem in
the device_get_mac_address().

> >> (There's the tiny question of that device_get_mac_address() which
> >> ath10k currently uses. It looks a lot like of_get_mac_address() too!
> >> but with extra ACPI (through FWNODE-which also includes OF), but
> >> without NVMEM.)
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Christian
> >
> > About this I never manage to understand the priority... Should ACPI
> > variant have priority and fallback to the OF api or the OF api should
> > overwrite any mac if a nvmem cell is found?
>
> Hmm, from what I know the device_/fwnode_*() functions are just wrappers
> for either ACPI (on systems with ACPI - x86 and ARM) or OF (on systems with
> Device-tree) functions... (There is also "software nodes", I think these are
> the lookupd stuff that came up recently with APU2 + MX100)
>
> This confused me too. But I might be able to show this in the context of
> ath10k-ct's current ath10k_core_probe_fw() and this threads new subject:
>
> <https://github.com/greearb/ath10k-ct/blob/e6a7d5b5b834737cd12e357b5efdc2e42d923bf6/ath10k-5.15/core.c#L4044>
> copied in here for a better reading experience:
> |
> |device_get_mac_address(ar->dev, ar->mac_addr, sizeof(ar->mac_addr));
> |
> |/* Try to get mac address from device node (from nvmem cell) */
> |of_get_mac_address(ar->dev->of_node, ar->mac_addr);
> |
>
> The device_get_mac_address() will on OF platforms essentially check and
> process the same "mac-address", "local-mac-address" and "address" OF
> properties of the same device-tree node as the following of_get_mac_address()
> will do. There's no priority.
>

The question was with the strange case of both device_get_mac_address and
and of_get_mac_addressproviding a mac what should be taken? In the current
implementation of_get_mac_address sets the mac and has priority.

> I think now, that instead of adding of_get_mac_address() into ath10k,
> the time might be better spent asking what's the goal for device_get_mac_address() is.
> Is device_get_mac_address() poised to usurp of_get_mac_address()? And if it
> is: Should it be extended to get that "mac-address in nvmem-cell" as well?
> Because then we don't really need to touch ath10k at all (well, maybe except
> for -EPROBE_DEFER handling).
>

To me it seems device_get_mac_address is used as it has ACPI support and
fwnode seems a better implementation of the OF api.

Anyway yes i think the current patch should handle the error as nvmem can
return probe_defer error.

> Cheers,
> Christian