Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] arm64: dts: qcom: thinkpad-x13s: Add bluetooth

[Steev Klimaszewski]

Hi Luiz,

>Hi Steev,

>On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 7:13 PM Steev Klimaszewski <steev@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >On 31/01/2023 05:38, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
>> >> Signed-off-by: Steev Klimaszewski <steev@xxxxxxxx>
>> >> ---
>> >>  .../qcom/sc8280xp-lenovo-thinkpad-x13s.dts    | 68 +++++++++++++++++++
>> >>  1 file changed, 68 insertions(+)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp-lenovo-thinkpad-x13s.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp-lenovo-thinkpad-x13s.dts
>> >> index f936b020a71d..951438ac5946 100644
>> >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp-lenovo-thinkpad-x13s.dts
>> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp-lenovo-thinkpad-x13s.dts
>> >> @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ / {
>> >>      aliases {
>> >>              i2c4 = &i2c4;
>> >>              i2c21 = &i2c21;
>> >> +            serial0 = &uart17;
>> >> +            serial1 = &uart2;
>> >>      };
>> >>
>> >>      wcd938x: audio-codec {
>> >> @@ -712,6 +714,32 @@ &qup0 {
>> >>      status = "okay";
>> >>  };
>> >>
>> >> +&uart2 {
>> >> +    status = "okay";
>> >> +
>> >> +    pinctrl-names = "default";
>> >> +    pinctrl-0 = <&uart2_state>;
>> >> +
>> >> +    bluetooth {
>> >> +            compatible = "qcom,wcn6855-bt";
>> >> +
>> >> +/*

>> > Why dead code should be in the kernel?

>> As mentioned in the cover letter, this is a bit closer to an RFC than ready to
>> go in, and I do apologize that it wasn't clear enough.  I do not have access to
>> the schematics, and based on my reading of the schema for bluetooth, these
>> entries are supposed to be required, however, like the wcn6750, I have dummy
>> data entered into the qca_soc_data_wcn6855 struct.  I know that these should be
>> there, I just do not have access to the correct information to put, if that
>> makes sense?

>Well you don't have the RFC set in the subject which is probably why
>people are reviewing it like it is supposed to be merged, that said I
>do wonder if there is to indicate these entries are to be considered
>sort of experimental so we don't end up enabling it by default?
>

Initially, it was meant to be more of an RFC/RFT, but as it turns out it works
pretty good with the defaults in the bluetooth driver, so I've made a change in
v3 to just make a note that it's a TODO? I'm not sure if that's okay or not, but
I'm sure people will let me know :)

>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> -- steev
>--
>Luiz Agusto von Dentz