linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8450: delete incorrect ufs interconnect fields

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:   Thu, 7 Apr 2022 23:16:06 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@...aro.org>,
        Jonathan Marek <jonathan@...ek.ca>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8450: delete incorrect ufs
 interconnect fields

On 07/04/2022 21:40, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> On 4/7/22 20:21, Jonathan Marek wrote:
>> Upstream sm8450.dtsi has #interconnect-cells = <2>; so these are wrong.
>> Ignored and undocumented with upstream UFS driver so delete for now.

This is the upstream and they are documented here, although as pointed
by Vladimir this was rather a reverse-documentation. The documentation
might be incorrect, but then the bindings should be corrected instead of
only modifying the DTS.

> 
> Basically the description was added by a commit 462c5c0aa798 ("dt-bindings: ufs:
> qcom,ufs: convert to dtschema").
> 
> It's questionable, if an example in the new yaml file is totally correct
> in connection to the discussed issue.

To be honest - the example probably is not correct, because it was based
on existing DTS without your patch. :)

Another question is whether the interconnect properties are here correct
at all. I assumed that DTS is correct because it should describe the
hardware, even if driver does not use it. However maybe that was a false
assumption...

Best regards,
Krzysztof