From fc0e6d3d1a9ce53fce5b1062ae88409cdcc76ccf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: mooleshacat <43627985+mooleshacat@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2026 18:52:16 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] brain +2 wrinkles from inline thinking breakthroughs

---
 .../arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/qcom-ipq4019-tew-829dru.dts         | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/target/linux/ipq40xx/files-6.12/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/qcom-ipq4019-tew-829dru.dts b/target/linux/ipq40xx/files-6.12/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/qcom-ipq4019-tew-829dru.dts
index cba1d7f755..73a80a2bf1 100644
--- a/target/linux/ipq40xx/files-6.12/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/qcom-ipq4019-tew-829dru.dts
+++ b/target/linux/ipq40xx/files-6.12/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/qcom-ipq4019-tew-829dru.dts
@@ -565,9 +565,10 @@ edma {
 
 QUESTIONS:
 	- where is the QCA8337?
-	- how is the QCA8337 initialized by the mfr?
+	- how is the QCA8337 initialized by the mfr? Does it matter given (see below) ?
 	- given both upstream and mfr use exact same hardware (QCA8337 & QCA8075) can we configure ours like upstream instead of mfr?
 	- to me this indicates both switches are compatible with both configurations
 	- if we do that , what are the possible negative effects?
+	- we would still require them to end up connected to gmac1
 
 */
\ No newline at end of file