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]

Message-ID: <3a7376aa-18a2-41cb-a4c9-680e735ce75b@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:25:44 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc:     Krishna Chaitanya Chundru <quic_krichai@...cinc.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.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 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.


Best regards,
Krzysztof