linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] phy: qcom-qusb2: Update the phy settings for IPQ5424

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <74c9c5c2-6195-4c32-ad34-a3889de0ea53@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 18:26:23 +0530
From: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@....qualcomm.com>
To: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Cc: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>,
        Varadarajan Narayanan <quic_varada@...cinc.com>,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <lumag@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy: qcom-qusb2: Update the phy settings for IPQ5424


On 4/11/2025 5:05 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 11-04-25, 14:29, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
>> On 4/11/2025 12:34 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>> On 07-04-25, 19:51, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
>>>> Update the phy settings for IPQ5424 to meet compliance requirements.
>>> Can you specify which requirements are these?
>> The eye diagram (Host High-speed Signal Quality) tests are failed with the
>> current settings. So design team asked to revert.
> That would be good to mention in changelog.. am sure you wont recall 6
> months down the line, which requirement this triggered the change!


Sure, let me mention in the commit message. And yes, as of now, all the 
compliance requirements are met.


>
>>>> The current settings do not meet the requirements, and the design team
>>>> has requested to use the settings used for IPQ6018.
>>>>
>>>> Revert the commit 9c56a1de296e ("phy: qcom-qusb2: add QUSB2 support for
>>>> IPQ5424") and reuse the IPQ6018 settings.
>>> Why not do revert first and then add the settings?
>>
>> I thought of submitting it separately. But what-if only the first patch
>> merged and second one didn't due to some issue, it will break the USB
>> feature. So, I thought it would be better to keep it in single commit.
>> Please let me know, I can send V2 with 2 patches with the merging strategy
>> (both patches should go together to avoid the USB breakage) in cover letter.
> Series is applied together and you can mention the dependency on cover
> letter

Sure, will send V2 accordingly.