linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] scsi: ufs: dt-bindings: Document UFS Disable LPM 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: <20250512-dynamic-wisteria-manatee-def67b@kuoka>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 18:55:50 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com>
Cc: alim.akhtar@...sung.com, avri.altman@....com, bvanassche@....org, 
	krzk+dt@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, mani@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, 
	James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com, beanhuo@...ron.com, 
	peter.wang@...iatek.com, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] scsi: ufs: dt-bindings: Document UFS Disable LPM
 property

On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 09:45:49AM GMT, Nitin Rawat wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/7/2025 8:34 PM, Nitin Rawat wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 5/6/2025 11:46 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 06/05/2025 18:37, Nitin Rawat wrote:
> > > > Disable UFS low power mode on emulation FPGA platforms or other
> > > > platforms
> > > 
> > > Why wouldn't you like to test LPM also on FPGA designs? I do not see
> > > here correlation.
> > 
> > Hi Krzysztof,
> > 
> > Since the FPGA platform doesn't support UFS Low Power Modes (such as the
> > AutoHibern8 feature specified in the UFS specification), I have included
> > this information in the hardware description (i.e dts).
> 
> 
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> Could you please share your thoughts on my above comment? If you still see
> concerns, I may need to consider other options like modparam.

It still looks like policy here. If this is soc specific, then I don't
get why SoC compatible would not be enough?

Best regards,
Krzysztof