[PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: net: wireless: ath10k: add qcom,no-msa-ready-indicator prop

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 21:46, Conor Dooley <conor at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 09:37:00PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 21:34, Conor Dooley <conor at kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 05:21:37PM +0100, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> > > > On 29/02/2024 19:40, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 06:37:08PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> As mentioned in my other reply, there are several msm8998-based
> > > > >>> devices affected by this issue. Is it not appropriate to consider
> > > > >>> a kernel-based work-around?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Sorry, not following you here. But I'll try to answer anyway:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I have understood that Device Tree is supposed to describe hardware, not
> > > > >> software. This is why having this property in DT does not look right
> > > > >> place for this. For example, if the ath10k firmware is fixed then DT
> > > > >> would have to be changed even though nothing changed in hardware. But of
> > > > >> course DT maintainers have the final say.
> > > > >
> > > > > I dunno, if the firmware affects the functionality of the hardware in a
> > > > > way that cannot be detected from the operating system at runtime how
> > > > > else is it supposed to deal with that?
> > > > > The devicetree is supposed to describe hardware, yes, but at a certain
> > > > > point the line between firmware and hardware is invisible :)
> > > > > Not describing software is mostly about not using it to determine
> > > > > software policy in the operating system.
> > > >
> > > > Recording here what was discussed a few days ago on IRC:
> > > >
> > > > If all msm8998 boards are affected, then it /might/ make sense
> > > > to work around the issue for ALL msm8998 boards:
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c
> > > > index 0776e79b25f3a..9da06da518fb6 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c
> > > > @@ -1076,6 +1076,9 @@ int ath10k_qmi_init(struct ath10k *ar, u32 msa_size)
> > > >       qmi->ar = ar;
> > > >       ar_snoc->qmi = qmi;
> > > >
> > > > +     if (of_device_is_compatible(of_root, "qcom,msm8998")
> > > > +             qmi->no_point_in_waiting_for_msa_ready_indicator = true;
> > > > +
> > > >       if (of_property_read_bool(dev->of_node, "qcom,msa-fixed-perm"))
> > > >               qmi->msa_fixed_perm = true;
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thus, anyone porting an msm8998 board to mainline would automatically
> > > > get the work-around, without having to hunt down the feature bit,
> > > > and tweak the FW files.
> > >
> > > How come the root node comes into this, don't you have a soc-specific
> > > compatible for the integration on this SoC?
> >
> > No. Ath10k uses WiFi SoC as an SoC designator rather than the main SoC.
>
> Suitability of either fix aside, can you explain this to me? Is the "WiFi
> SoC" accessible from the "main SoC" at a regular MMIO address? The
> "ath10k" compatible says it is SDIO-based & the other two compatibles
> seem to be MMIO.

Yes, this is correct. MSM8996 uses PCI to access WiFi chip, MSM8998 uses MMIO.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry