linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] soc: qcom: Make the Qualcomm UFS/SDCC ICE a dedicated driver

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:   Tue, 14 Feb 2023 13:46:18 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@...aro.org>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        "James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] soc: qcom: Make the Qualcomm UFS/SDCC ICE a
 dedicated driver

On 14/02/2023 13:02, Abel Vesa wrote:
> This takes the already existing duplicated support in both ufs-qcom
> and sdhci-msm drivers and makes it a dedicated driver that can be used
> by both mentioned drivers. The reason for this is because, staring with
> SM8550, the ICE IP block is shared between UFS and SDCC, which means we
> need to probe a dedicated device and share it between those two
> consumers. So let's add the ICE dedicated driver as a soc driver.

To clarify - missing binding, thus NAK for the patch going with out it.
It's not a NAK of course for the code itself.

Best regards,
Krzysztof