linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] qcom-ufs: phy/hcd: Refactor phy initialization code

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 9 Aug 2017 11:18:26 +0530
From:   Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
To:     Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>
CC:     <martin.petersen@...cle.com>, <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <subhashj@...eaurora.org>,
        <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, <vinholikatti@...il.com>,
        <linux-arm-msm-owner@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] qcom-ufs: phy/hcd: Refactor phy initialization code

Vivek,

On Tuesday 08 August 2017 09:20 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> Hi Koshon,
> 
> On 2017-08-08 17:39, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Friday 04 August 2017 12:18 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>> Refactoring the qcom-ufs phy and host controller code to move
>>> further towards the generic phy usage. Right now the qcom-ufs exports
>>> a bunch of APIs that are used by the host controller to initialize
>>> the phy.
>>> With this patch series, we populate the phy_init() which was a no-op
>>> earlier. The host controller then calls the phy_init() at the designated
>>> place rather than doing it invariably in ufs_hcd_init().
>>>
>>> As part of this series, we introduce phy modes for ufs phy.
>>> The M-PHY has two data rates defined for each generations (Gears) -
>>> Rate A and Rate B. These can serve as the two modes of ufs HS phy.
>>> Host controller can direct the phy to set the respective configurations
>>> based on the phy modes.
>>>
>>> The patch-series has been tested with necessary dt patches on db820c.
>>
>> Can the first 3 patches go independently of the other 2 or should all this be
>> merged together?
> 
> The first 3 patches are independent, but the next 2 patches depend on those 3
> for functionality.
> I would prefer all to go in one tree. If you want to pull these in the phy tree,
> I will request Subhash/Martin to ack the patches.

sure, that should be fine!

Thanks
Kishon