RE: [PATCH v2 0/3] wifi: iwlwifi: add Device Tree hardware integration information

[Bhatt, Avinash]

> If you are not willing to post DTS, then you are not helping us to
> understand the completeness of this binding and hardware description.
> IOW, the bigger picture is missing, so IMO I would remove most of the
> properties.

Apologies for the delay in getting back on this. This is not a matter
of willingness — we have a dependency on our OEM partners to provide an
upstream DTS user, as this binding is intended for use on their
platforms.

We reached out to them, and they have confirmed that they are unable to
upstream their DTS at this time. Given this constraint, we will hold
off on pushing this binding upstream for now. We will reassess and
return to this thread if and when the situation changes.

Best regards,
Avinash

-----Original Message-----
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: 13 May 2026 23:49
To: Bhatt, Avinash <avinash.bhatt@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; robh@xxxxxxxxxx; krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Korenblit, Miriam Rachel <miriam.rachel.korenblit@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Guetta, Kobi <kobi.guetta@xxxxxxxxx>; Grumbach, Emmanuel <emmanuel.grumbach@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] wifi: iwlwifi: add Device Tree hardware integration information

On 12/05/2026 12:07, Bhatt, Avinash wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> Thank you for the review. Please find our response inline below.
> 
> On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 12:53:24PM +0300, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> Please provide link to any upstream DTS user of this binding, either 
>> complete or work in progress.
> 
> We have OEM partners waiting for this binding layout to be finalized 
> before they proceed with their DTS work. Our intent is to have the 
> schema reviewed and accepted by the DT maintainers first — sharing a 
> binding that may still undergo structural changes with OEMs would 
> create unnecessary churn on their side.
> 
> OEM partners are targeting platforms that depend on this binding. They 
> are waiting for the schema to be finalized before proceeding with 
> their DTS work, and whether they upstream that DTS is ultimately their 
> decision.
> 
> If a DTS user is strictly required for the binding to be merged, we 
> understand and accept that requirement — however, since OEM 
> upstreaming is outside our control, we would greatly appreciate an 
> early indication of whether the schema direction is acceptable before 
> we distribute it further. Any feedback or provisional acceptance at 
> this stage would be very helpful.
> 
> We are actively addressing all the review comments from v2 and plan to 
> send v3 shortly.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Avinash
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 05 May 2026 14:50
> To: Bhatt, Avinash <avinash.bhatt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
> robh@xxxxxxxxxx; krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; 
> johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Korenblit, Miriam Rachel 
> <miriam.rachel.korenblit@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
> Guetta, Kobi <kobi.guetta@xxxxxxxxx>; Grumbach, Emmanuel 
> <emmanuel.grumbach@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] wifi: iwlwifi: add Device Tree hardware 
> integration information
> 
> On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 12:53:24PM +0300, Avinash Bhatt wrote:
>> Add Device Tree support for Intel Wi-Fi hardware integration 
>> information on platforms that do not provide UEFI variables or ACPI methods.
>>
>> Patch 1/3 adds the DT binding schema for the Intel iwlwifi compatible 
>> node. Patches 2/3 and 3/3 add the driver infrastructure and integrate 
>> DT as the lowest-priority fallback after UEFI and ACPI.
> 
> Please provide link to any upstream DTS user of this binding, either complete or work in progress.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Do not top post.

If you are not willing to post DTS, then you are not helping us to understand the completeness of this binding and hardware description.
IOW, the bigger picture is missing, so IMO I would remove most of the properties.

Best regards,
Krzysztof