linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,qmp: Add PCIe qcom,refclk-always-on property

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:   Fri, 1 Dec 2023 22:29:11 +0100
From:   Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc:     Krishna Chaitanya Chundru <quic_krichai@...cinc.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        quic_vbadigan@...cinc.com, quic_ramkri@...cinc.com,
        quic_nitegupt@...cinc.com, quic_skananth@...cinc.com,
        quic_vpernami@...cinc.com, quic_parass@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,qmp: Add PCIe
 qcom,refclk-always-on property

On 1.12.2023 14:25, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 01/12/2023 13:30, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
>>> What I said before:
>>> "Again, third time (once from Bjorn, once from Dmitry), rephrase
>>> property name and description to describe the hardware issue. I see
>>> description improved, but not the property name. Again in the end of
>>> description you say what Linux should do. Bindings do not describe Linux
>>> OS."
>>>
>>
>> You didn't answer my question:
>>
>> "I see a plenty of properties similar to this one instructing the OS to keep some
>> resource ON to workaround hardware issues. So they are all wrong?"
> 
> They are not the best, but it all depends on the individual case.
> 
>>
>> If you say they are wrong, why are they approved in the first place?
> Because we don't have time to keep digging what the driver is doing and
> what is claimed in DT. Some people don't even CC us on the driver.
Not sure if I asked this before, but can this not be set in the config
struct inside the driver?

Konrad