linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] arm64: dts: qcom: sa8775p: Add UART node

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: <d3b53c3c-e94a-4c3e-8ba9-5bf6144fa5e0@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 19:16:36 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Viken Dadhaniya <quic_vdadhani@...cinc.com>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, andersson@...nel.org,
 robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 conor+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: quic_msavaliy@...cinc.com, quic_anupkulk@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] arm64: dts: qcom: sa8775p: Add UART node

On 12/07/2024 11:32, Viken Dadhaniya wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/11/2024 11:47 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 11/07/2024 07:04, Viken Dadhaniya wrote:
>>>>>> +				clock-names = "se";
>>>>>> +				interconnects = <&clk_virt MASTER_QUP_CORE_2 QCOM_ICC_TAG_ALWAYS
>>>>>> +						 &clk_virt SLAVE_QUP_CORE_2 QCOM_ICC_TAG_ALWAYS>,
>>>>>> +						<&gem_noc MASTER_APPSS_PROC QCOM_ICC_TAG_ALWAYS
>>>>>> +						 &config_noc SLAVE_QUP_2 QCOM_ICC_TAG_ALWAYS>;
>>>>>> +				interconnect-names = "qup-core", "qup-config";
>>>>>> +				power-domains = <&rpmhpd SA8775P_CX>;
>>>>>
>>>>> All the clocks, interconenct and power domains look to me questionable.
>>>>> AFAIK, most of it (if not all) is going to be removed.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah.. I'm lukewarm on accepting any sa8775p changes until that qcs9100(?)
>>>> situation is squared out first
>>>>
>>>> Konrad
>>>
>>> Thanks for clarification. Please help to sign-off or let me know in case
>>> of any concern.
>>
>> I think I was quite explicit, so I feel above suggestion as still
>> pushing your choice even though to reviewers gave you their opinion.
>>
>> In such case:
>>
>> No, NAK, for the reasons stated above.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>>
> 
> Sure, taken the notes from both of you.
> Shall we wait for the shifting of DTSI file from sc8775p to qcs9100 ?
> OR is there any other way to move ahead ?
> Please suggest, we shall do whatever guidance from you both.

Do not add code which we already know that it is incorrect or
incomplete. Instead align with your colleagues about proper upstreaming
of this platform.

I am not going to sign off such patches.

Best regards,
Krzysztof