From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAA81254841; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 06:51:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770274295; cv=none; b=c+rbi7cfqpy9MlEyV3Hxzw5s+FgPEi+qRxUmLu2iftRGQBjO99SRZX7+vS10GEkZqASQ6ENCUo0nsC5J2SmOMxNsAPIY2t88ULlXfG1oeGRKuSdUqrnhPwcVTdMz+ME7j7SSbCTks5LUwdzKlIQjlJ+u2mQedovjaV0wk4vtxlg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770274295; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JFHqCS/QE3dG9chs601h5qLL6L3aYBiTEhvSUt9PcEg=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=VTT5giyHyVu0J2GXzpb5PKz33NZWMJwsZ82/e7j147YnLoIBMbjNwtlNk5ZQnjKdisnefJCHvRIjIaHYb66RqQIXfKLxicEGulaEYbhItha4o2n/+yJMovzDpIxB2mBgehobUYpEF6gFLwHqENNQ1JIM7bxP8c4eg0IMqPV4vY0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=G/KbFRk2; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="G/KbFRk2" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=JFHqCS/QE3dG9chs601h5qLL6L3aYBiTEhvSUt9PcEg=; t=1770274294; x=1771483894; b=G/KbFRk2hoI7KOBmNICMrTNJrZRMWJJbk40M12JMba+mkZG 8/9jSfpB6lS0yw8jd7ri+svTcsz/rIXwVzSCGCHiVvQTvpgZsz9TpHlecs9YqY2gnTa8glRSTwfec pWBRS/UEOTiwi9M/Q/W4R5rBkF3TTPpNqEE9Jvi9aSd5gRxrxBQsiou2sprwNU84pjf7qC4RfPEql 9061edXxtJ8+ATw4n4IIrMzt2qmJFazjKgDX/sR6o/s084sitlt/xORcHi7Y3Z6pmO/FweIt4jD1o FnzchNQdJW79oFtaSwZ9OELWSOAmJBNLJ8l8Ot7b4gJaLRdy1q2anQorILQt7oWw==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vntDA-0000000FK18-0wMQ; Thu, 05 Feb 2026 07:51:32 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/21] wifi: nxpwifi: create nxpwifi to support From: Johannes Berg To: Jeff Chen Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, briannorris@chromium.org, francesco@dolcini.it, s.hauer@pengutronix.de Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2026 07:51:31 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20260204180358.632281-1-jeff.chen_1@nxp.com> <3eaf27a486a80012b0be116e847f2e93f162aa1e.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.58.3 (3.58.3-1.fc43) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Thu, 2026-02-05 at 14:48 +0800, Jeff Chen wrote: >=20 > I dropped only the DT binding YAML from this wireless-only series because > bindings are reviewed by the Devicetree subsystem. Right, I get that. > The driver keeps minimal > and optional OF handling, Yeah that part seems strange to me. Any OF handling in a driver should be written per the binding spec (YAML file), I believe, how can you write it in the driver without reviewing the binding first? > but SDIO bring-up does not depend on any DT > properties =E2=80=94 enumeration is via SDIO VID/PID and the driver works= without a > binding. Yes, I get that too, but still you have a driver code that (I believe) ought to be written to the binding, but have deliberately excluded the binding. So I don't think the code should be present either? > The plan is to submit the binding YAML (and any DT properties we actually= need, > e.g. OOB wake IRQ/regulators) as a separate patchset to the DT maintainer= s so > review happens in the right subsystem without blocking the wireless revie= w. Sure, understood, I just think there's a code dependency too, per above. johannes