linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] dt-bindindgs: i2c: qcom,i2c-geni: Document shared flag

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: <c275cf76-0335-4b01-8d07-86d38e6d27e0@quicinc.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 20:37:27 +0530
From: Mukesh Kumar Savaliya <quic_msavaliy@...cinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        <andersson@...nel.org>, <andi.shyti@...nel.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        <conor+dt@...nel.org>, <agross@...nel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <vkoul@...nel.org>, <linux@...blig.org>,
        <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, <Frank.Li@....com>,
        <konradybcio@...nel.org>, <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
        <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, <robh@...nel.org>
CC: <quic_vdadhani@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] dt-bindindgs: i2c: qcom,i2c-geni: Document shared
 flag

Hi Krzysztof ,

On 12/2/2024 4:43 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 02/12/2024 12:04, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 02/12/2024 11:38, Mukesh Kumar Savaliya wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Come with one flag or enum, if needed, covering all your cases like this.
Please review below comment which was about other cores. I think we can 
go with single flag naming qcom,shared-corename, for similar features 
for any core.
>>>>
>>> Let me explain, this feature is one of the additional software case
>>> adding on base protocol support. if we dont have more than one usecase
>>> or repurposing this feature, why do we need to add enums ? I see one
>>> flag gpi_mode but it's internal to driver not exposed to user or expose
>>> any usecase/feature.
>>>
>>> Below was our earlier context, just wanted to add for clarity.
>>> --
>>>   > Is sharing of IP blocks going to be also for other devices? If yes, then
>>>   > this should be one property for all Qualcomm devices. If not, then be
>>>   > sure that this is the case because I will bring it up if you come with
>>>   > one more solution for something else.
>>
>>
>> You keep repeating the same. You won't receive any other answer.
>>
>>>   >
>>> IP blocks like SE can be shared. Here we are talking about I2C sharing.
>>> In future it can be SPI sharing. But design wise it fits better to add
>>> flag per SE node. Same we shall be adding for SPI too in future.
>>
>>
>> How flag per SE node is relevant? I did not ask to move the property.
>>
>>>
>>> Please let me know your further suggestions.
>> We do not talk about I2C or SPI here only. We talk about entire SoC.
>> Since beginning. Find other patch proposals and align with rest of
>> Qualcomm developers so that you come with only one definition for this
>> feature/characteristic. Or do you want to say that I am free to NAK all
>> further properties duplicating this one?
>>
>> Please confirm that you Qualcomm engineers understand the last statement
>> and that every block will use se-shared, even if we speak about UFS for
>> example.
>>
> 
> I think I was pretty clear also 2 months ago what do I expect from this:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/52f83419-cc5e-49f3-90a7-26a5b4ddd5a0@kernel.org/
> 
> 
> I do not see this addressing qcom-wide way at all. Four new versions of
> patch and you still did not address first fedback you got.
> 

To answer the comment @ 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/52f83419-cc5e-49f3-90a7-26a5b4ddd5a0@kernel.org/ 


Sorry for not replying straight to this query. Let me, sort out here 
being in agreement with you. I queried internally, no USB OR UFS OR PCIe 
having this case. BAM (sps driver) has such usecase, and if it's comes 
up in future, we should give similar name like shared-xxx if it's 
similar in nature.

"qcom,shared-xxx" is what i think a better option. Can it be renamed per 
core and let individual HW core use it when required ? Just my thought, 
you may please suggest better and simplified way.

clock controllers, TLMMs, MMUs  etc should also should add similar name 
if it's best suiting to the needs and similar feature.

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof