[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <734cf70a-1d96-4a87-bc7e-c070c1e7dc8c@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 14:29:20 +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 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.
>
>> 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.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists