Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] ath10k: add option for chip-id based BDF selection

Hi,

quoted

(no changes since v1)

I think you need to work on the method you're using to generate your
patches.  There are most definitely changes since v1.  You described
them in your cover letter (which you don't really need for a singleton
patch) instead of here.

I agree, this was not intentional, I will fix this in the upcoming patches.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 7:34 AM Doug Anderson [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi,

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 3:33 AM Rakesh Pillai [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

What I'm trying to say is this.  Imagine that:

a) the device tree has the "variant" property.

b) the BRD file has two entries, one for "board-id" (1) and one for
"board-id + chip-id" (2).  It doesn't have one for "board-id + chip-id
+ variant" (3).

With your suggestion we'll see the "variant" property in the device
tree.  That means we'll search for (1) and (3).  (3) isn't there, so
we'll pick (1).  ...but we really should have picked (2), right?

Do we expect board-2.bin to not be populated with the bdf with variant field (if its necessary ?)

The whole fact that there is a fallback to begin with implies that
there can be a mismatch between the board-2.bin and the device tree
file.  Once we accept that there can be a mismatch, it seems good to
try all 3 fallbacks in order.

quoted

Seems fine for me, if we have 2 fallback names if that is needed.

OK, sounds good.  So hopefully Abhishek can post a v3 based on what's
in <https://crrev.com/c/2556437> and you can confirm you're good with
it there?

I agree, with this patch there can be mismatch between what's provided
in the Board file and what required board name we are generating, so
three calls are needed. So in a sense, we want to keep the V1 patch
with fix to reuse the same BDF.

I am making V3 changes and will address and push that out.

Thanks
Abhishek