linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 2/4] dt-bindings: mmc: controller: Add max-sd-hs-frequency 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: <ffc62906-c3bb-4968-8f7c-fa7ae5028ad5@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 14:16:45 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>,
 Sarthak Garg <quic_sartgarg@...cinc.com>,
 Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
 Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc: linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 quic_cang@...cinc.com, quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com, quic_rampraka@...cinc.com,
 quic_pragalla@...cinc.com, quic_sayalil@...cinc.com,
 quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com, quic_bhaskarv@...cinc.com, kernel@....qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/4] dt-bindings: mmc: controller: Add
 max-sd-hs-frequency property

On 23/06/2025 14:08, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This might be fine, but your DTS suggests clearly this is SoC compatible
>>>> deducible, which I already said at v1.
>>>
>>> I don't understand why you're rejecting a common solution to a problem
>>> that surely exists outside this one specific chip from one specific
>>> vendor, which may be caused by a multitude of design choices, including
>>> erratic board (not SoC) electrical design
>>
>> No one brought any arguments so far that common solution is needed. The
>> only argument provided - sm8550 - is showing this is soc design.
>>
>> I don't reject common solution. I provided review at v1 to which no one
>> responded, no one argued, no one provided other arguments.
> 
> Okay, so the specific problem that causes this observable limitation
> exists on SM8550 and at least one more platform which is not upstream
> today. It can be caused by various electrical issues, in our specific
> case by something internal to the SoC (but external factors may apply
> too)
> 
> Looking at the docs, a number of platforms have various limitations
> with regards to frequency at specific speed-modes, some of which seem
> to be handled implicitly by rounding in the clock framework's
> round/set_rate().
> 
> I can very easily imagine there are either boards or platforms in the
> wild, where the speed must be limited for various reasons, maybe some
> of them currently don't advertise it (like sm8550 on next/master) to
> hide that

But there are no such now. The only argument (fact) provided in this
patchset is: this is issue specific to SM8550 SoC, not the board. See
last patch. Therefore this is compatible-deducible and this makes
property without any upstream user.


Best regards,
Krzysztof