linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] arm64: dts: qcom: Add support for Xiaomi Poco F1 (Beryllium)

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]

Message-ID: <23c4191e-4d64-80d8-e688-27d004729ea1@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Aug 2020 23:21:25 +0200
From:   Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...il.com>
To:     Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        dt <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] arm64: dts: qcom: Add support for Xiaomi Poco F1
 (Beryllium)

Hi

First of all, sorry if anybody sees this twice. I've been messing with Thunderbird lately.

> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM)	+= sdm845-cheza-r3.dtb
> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM)	+= sdm845-db845c.dtb
> +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM)	+= sdm845-beryllium.dtb

[B]eryllium should come before [C]heza, no? Also, aren't the non-development boards supposed to include the vendor name? i.e. sdm845-(xiaomi/poco)-beryllium.dtb

> +	model = "Xiaomi Technologies Inc. Beryllium";

At least with Xperias, we settled on setting the model property to the "pretty" name, in this case Poco F1

> +	pm8998-rpmh-regulators {
> +		compatible = "qcom,pm8998-rpmh-regulators";
> +		qcom,pmic-id = "a";
> +
> +		vreg_l1a_0p875: ldo1 {

I think you forgot to include (regulatorname)-supply properties which should cause havoc with all things regulators..

> +		vreg_l1a_0p875: ldo1 {
> +			regulator-min-microvolt = <880000>;
> +			regulator-max-microvolt = <880000>;
0p88? Unless it's a PMIC limitation.. Please also confirm names for the rest of the regulators.

Also why are there so few regulators? And none from pmi8998? Are the rest WIP/coming in a followup commit, or are they disabled on this board? AFAICS you only include SoC/PMIC DTs which would suggest they should be there.

> +/* Reserved memory changes from downstream */

Wouldn't it look better if you included that in the main {} node instead of reopening it in the middle of the file? I mean, it works, but let's hear what others have to say.

> +			 * It seems that mmc_test reports errors if drive
> +			 * strength is not 16 on clk, cmd, and data pins.

You say that, but then you set "drive-strength = <10>;" for cmd and data, please confirm it's intentional.

> +&ufs_mem_hc {

UFS comes before USB alphabetically.

> +&ufs_mem_phy

Ditto

> +&qup_uart6_default

Ditto

Konrad