Add the device-tree bindings for the ATH12K AHB wifi device IPQ5424.

Signed-off-by: Raj Kumar Bhagat <raj.bhagat@oss.qualcomm.com>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ipq5332-wifi.yaml | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ipq5332-wifi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ipq5332-wifi.yaml
index 363a0ecb6ad9..b30f639b4c91 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ipq5332-wifi.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ipq5332-wifi.yaml
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
-# Copyright (c) 2024-2025 Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. All rights reserved.
+# Copyright (c) Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. and/or its subsidiaries.
 %YAML 1.2
 ---
 $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/net/wireless/qcom,ipq5332-wifi.yaml#
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ properties:
   compatible:
     enum:
       - qcom,ipq5332-wifi
+      - qcom,ipq5424-wifi
 
   reg:
     maxItems: 1

-- 
2.34.1

On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 02:09:06AM +0530, Raj Kumar Bhagat wrote:
>  $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/net/wireless/qcom,ipq5332-wifi.yaml#
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ properties:
>    compatible:
>      enum:
>        - qcom,ipq5332-wifi
> +      - qcom,ipq5424-wifi

No, use previous patch.

I am annoyed that you keep making changes even for such trivialities and
require re-review from the community.  Previous patch was correct. This
one doing whatever you want to do in copyrights is too much. You don't
change copyrights just because you wrote one device model.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

On 3/31/2026 12:24 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 02:09:06AM +0530, Raj Kumar Bhagat wrote:
>>  $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/net/wireless/qcom,ipq5332-wifi.yaml#
>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ properties:
>>    compatible:
>>      enum:
>>        - qcom,ipq5332-wifi
>> +      - qcom,ipq5424-wifi
> 
> No, use previous patch.
> 
> I am annoyed that you keep making changes even for such trivialities and
> require re-review from the community.  Previous patch was correct. This
> one doing whatever you want to do in copyrights is too much. You don't
> change copyrights just because you wrote one device model.

Krzysztof,

FYI here is the guidance I received from Qualcomm legal (links to internal
documentation, removed -- I've forwarded the entire e-mail to your Qualcomm
mailbox):

... Repos under copyleft license [...] QTI copyright must be added when we
make significant changes.

... Repos under friendly license (BSD, Apache, MIT, ...) [...] QTI copyright
must be added for any changes, not just significant ones.

... under the regular QUIC to QTI open-source copyright transitioning [...]
all QUIC Copyright instances should be replaced with year-less QTI OSS Copyright.

I'll follow up with them on this case where there is a dual-license file.

/jeff

On 31/03/2026 16:23, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On 3/31/2026 12:24 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 02:09:06AM +0530, Raj Kumar Bhagat wrote:
>>>  $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/net/wireless/qcom,ipq5332-wifi.yaml#
>>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ properties:
>>>    compatible:
>>>      enum:
>>>        - qcom,ipq5332-wifi
>>> +      - qcom,ipq5424-wifi
>>
>> No, use previous patch.
>>
>> I am annoyed that you keep making changes even for such trivialities and
>> require re-review from the community.  Previous patch was correct. This
>> one doing whatever you want to do in copyrights is too much. You don't
>> change copyrights just because you wrote one device model.
> 
> Krzysztof,
> 
> FYI here is the guidance I received from Qualcomm legal (links to internal
> documentation, removed -- I've forwarded the entire e-mail to your Qualcomm
> mailbox):

As I explained already more than once, legal can engage in open source
discussions directly. I am not going to discuss with them via proxies.

> 
> ... Repos under copyleft license [...] QTI copyright must be added when we
> make significant changes.
> 
> ... Repos under friendly license (BSD, Apache, MIT, ...) [...] QTI copyright
> must be added for any changes, not just significant ones.
> 
> ... under the regular QUIC to QTI open-source copyright transitioning [...]
> all QUIC Copyright instances should be replaced with year-less QTI OSS Copyright.
> 
> I'll follow up with them on this case where there is a dual-license file.

You nicely removed the quote where they ask to follow what the upstream
maintainer asks for. So as one of the maintainers I ask not to change
it, because it is churn and pointless waste of my time.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

On 3/31/2026 7:42 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 31/03/2026 16:23, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> On 3/31/2026 12:24 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 02:09:06AM +0530, Raj Kumar Bhagat wrote:
>>>>  $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/net/wireless/qcom,ipq5332-wifi.yaml#
>>>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ properties:
>>>>    compatible:
>>>>      enum:
>>>>        - qcom,ipq5332-wifi
>>>> +      - qcom,ipq5424-wifi
>>>
>>> No, use previous patch.
>>>
>>> I am annoyed that you keep making changes even for such trivialities and
>>> require re-review from the community.  Previous patch was correct. This
>>> one doing whatever you want to do in copyrights is too much. You don't
>>> change copyrights just because you wrote one device model.
>>
>> Krzysztof,
>>
>> FYI here is the guidance I received from Qualcomm legal (links to internal
>> documentation, removed -- I've forwarded the entire e-mail to your Qualcomm
>> mailbox):
> 
> As I explained already more than once, legal can engage in open source
> discussions directly. I am not going to discuss with them via proxies.
> 
>>
>> ... Repos under copyleft license [...] QTI copyright must be added when we
>> make significant changes.
>>
>> ... Repos under friendly license (BSD, Apache, MIT, ...) [...] QTI copyright
>> must be added for any changes, not just significant ones.
>>
>> ... under the regular QUIC to QTI open-source copyright transitioning [...]
>> all QUIC Copyright instances should be replaced with year-less QTI OSS Copyright.
>>
>> I'll follow up with them on this case where there is a dual-license file.
> 
> You nicely removed the quote where they ask to follow what the upstream
> maintainer asks for. So as one of the maintainers I ask not to change
> it, because it is churn and pointless waste of my time.

Although I feel the latest patch correctly represents Qualcomm legal guidance,
I'm not going to insist upon the copyright change.

/jeff

On 31-03-2026 21:14, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On 3/31/2026 7:42 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 31/03/2026 16:23, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2026 12:24 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 02:09:06AM +0530, Raj Kumar Bhagat wrote:
>>>>>   $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/net/wireless/qcom,ipq5332-wifi.yaml#
>>>>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ properties:
>>>>>     compatible:
>>>>>       enum:
>>>>>         - qcom,ipq5332-wifi
>>>>> +      - qcom,ipq5424-wifi
>>>>
>>>> No, use previous patch.
>>>>
>>>> I am annoyed that you keep making changes even for such trivialities and
>>>> require re-review from the community.  Previous patch was correct. This
>>>> one doing whatever you want to do in copyrights is too much. You don't
>>>> change copyrights just because you wrote one device model.
>>>
>>> Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> FYI here is the guidance I received from Qualcomm legal (links to internal
>>> documentation, removed -- I've forwarded the entire e-mail to your Qualcomm
>>> mailbox):
>>
>> As I explained already more than once, legal can engage in open source
>> discussions directly. I am not going to discuss with them via proxies.
>>
>>>
>>> ... Repos under copyleft license [...] QTI copyright must be added when we
>>> make significant changes.
>>>
>>> ... Repos under friendly license (BSD, Apache, MIT, ...) [...] QTI copyright
>>> must be added for any changes, not just significant ones.
>>>
>>> ... under the regular QUIC to QTI open-source copyright transitioning [...]
>>> all QUIC Copyright instances should be replaced with year-less QTI OSS Copyright.
>>>
>>> I'll follow up with them on this case where there is a dual-license file.
>>
>> You nicely removed the quote where they ask to follow what the upstream
>> maintainer asks for. So as one of the maintainers I ask not to change
>> it, because it is churn and pointless waste of my time.
> 
> Although I feel the latest patch correctly represents Qualcomm legal guidance,
> I'm not going to insist upon the copyright change.
> 
Thanks for the discussion,
will use previous DT binding patch (v2) in the next version.