linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V1 0/3] scsi: ufs: Add a vops to configure VCC voltage level

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 19 Feb 2021 18:59:07 +0530
From:   nitirawa@...eaurora.org
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        stanley.chu@...iatek.com
Cc:     asutoshd@...eaurora.org, cang@...eaurora.org,
        stummala@...eaurora.org, vbadigan@...eaurora.org,
        alim.akhtar@...sung.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, stanley.chu@...iatek.com,
        beanhuo@...ron.com, bvanassche@....org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 0/3] scsi: ufs: Add a vops to configure VCC voltage
 level

On 2021-02-08 17:52, Avri Altman wrote:
>> >> The flow should be generic - isn't it?
>> >> Why do you need the entire flow to be vendor-specific?
>> >> Why not just the parameters vendor-specific?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Avri
>> >
>> > Hi Avri,
>> > This vops change was done as per the below mail thread
>> > discussion where it was decided to go with vops and
>> > let vendors handle it, until specs provides more clarity.
>> >
>> > https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg3754995.html
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Nitin
>> 
>> Hi Avri,
>> Please let me know if you have any further comments on this.
> No further comments.
> Looks like you need an ack from Stanley or Bjorn who proposed this 
> approach.
> 
> Thanks,
> Avri

Hi Stanley/Bjorn,

Please can you review this patch and provide your input.

Regards,
Nitin