[PATCH] ath10k: Use bdf calibration variant for snoc targets

[Rakesh Pillai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kalle Valo <kvalo at codeaurora.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 9:48 PM
> To: Rakesh Pillai <pillair at codeaurora.org>
> Cc: linux-wireless at vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org;
> ath10k at lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath10k: Use bdf calibration variant for snoc targets
> 
> "Rakesh Pillai" <pillair at codeaurora.org> writes:
> 
> >> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c
> >> > @@ -576,6 +576,8 @@ static int
> ath10k_qmi_cap_send_sync_msg(struct
> >> ath10k_qmi *qmi)
> >> >  	if (resp->chip_info_valid) {
> >> >  		qmi->chip_info.chip_id = resp->chip_info.chip_id;
> >> >  		qmi->chip_info.chip_family =
resp->chip_info.chip_family;
> >> > +	} else {
> >> > +		qmi->chip_info.chip_id = 0xFF;
> >> >  	}
> >>
> >> So you hard code chip_id to 0xff if it's not valid. Is it 100%
> >> guaranteed that there never will be a chip id with 0xff?
> >
> > 0x0 and 0xff are invalid chip id and are are not used.
> > If the chip_id read fails, we fallback to the default board data.
> > 0xff is used to go to the default board data (Also this is in alignment
with
> > the current implementation of board_id)
> >
> > Does that make sense ?
> 
> I'm a bit hesitant, over the years I have seen cases so many cases where
> "foo is not used anywhere" and later that foo is actually used
> somewhere. 0xff means that there's only 254 different values, but I
> guess there are not that many chip ids? So a chip id is very different
> from a board id, right?

Yes that's correct.
Chip id is already being used in case of qca6174 (pci bus)
We are bringing this to snoc bus chipset (WCN3990)

> 
> --
> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingp
> atches