On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 05:14:23PM +0530, c_tr...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote: > From: Tamizh chelvam <tamizhchel...@codeaurora.org> > > There two things done in this patch. > > 1) 'btcoex_support' flag for BTCOEX feature support by the hardware. > 2) 'wlan_btcoex_gpio' is used to fill wlan priority pin number for > BTCOEX priority feature support. > > Signed-off-by: Tamizh chelvam <tamizhchel...@codeaurora.org> > --- > .../bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ath10k.txt | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ath10k.txt > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ath10k.txt > index 74d7f0a..08150e2d 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ath10k.txt > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ath10k.txt > @@ -46,6 +46,10 @@ Optional properties: > hw versions. > - qcom,ath10k-pre-calibration-data : pre calibration data as an array, > the length can vary between hw versions. > +- btcoex_support : should contain eithr "0" or "1" to indicate btcoex > + support by the hardware.
This is BT coexistence? Make this boolean and n > +- btcoex_gpio_pin : btcoex gpio pin number for the device which > + supports BTCOEX. This is a pin number on the chip, not any pin number Linux GPIO subsys cares about, right? Is there a connection to the host too, or this is internal between BT and WiFi? Do you really need 2 properties? Does supporting this feature require the GPIO? If so, then the first property is redundant. Needs vendor prefix and don't use '_'. Should be something like 'qcom,bt-coexist-gpio-pin'. Rob
