linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: sram: qcom,imem: Document Qualcomm IPQ SoC's IMEM compatibles

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: <37695966-1d7c-46c3-9717-30da4e8d1930@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 16:16:37 +0530
From: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@....qualcomm.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.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>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: sram: qcom,imem: Document Qualcomm IPQ
 SoC's IMEM compatibles


On 7/2/2025 3:49 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 02/07/2025 12:17, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
>> IMEM is present in the Qualcomm's IPQ SoCs as well. Document the same.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@....qualcomm.com>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml | 6 ++++++
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> Where is the changelog? This is not a v1.

This is the v1. The series[1] I pointed out describes only for the 
IPQ5424 SoC. Since I have added few more SoCs, thought v1 is the 
appropriate numbering.

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20250610-wdt_reset_reason-v5-0-2d2835160ab5@oss.qualcomm.com/

>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
>> index 72d35e30c439ccf4901d937f838fe7c7a81f33b1..48e2f332e0e9fc9fa4147fa12d9c6c70a77fafda 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
>> @@ -18,6 +18,12 @@ properties:
>>       items:
>>         - enum:
>>             - qcom,apq8064-imem
>> +          - qcom,ipq8074-imem
>> +          - qcom,ipq6018-imem
>> +          - qcom,ipq5018-imem
>> +          - qcom,ipq9574-imem
>> +          - qcom,ipq5332-imem
>> +          - qcom,ipq5424-imem
> Random order, no, follow existing style. This applies for every qcom
> binding and you received such feedbacks in the past.

Apologies — I arranged them based on the evolutionary order of SoCs. 
I’ll correct this in v2 and ensure it’s handled properly in the future.

>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof