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

[Abhishek Kumar]

Hi,

> > (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 <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 3:33 AM Rakesh Pillai <pillair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
>
> > 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