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: <e1424499-718a-41c8-b729-0ea96bb6a172@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 12:48:41 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@....qualcomm.com>,
 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 02/07/2025 12:46, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
> 
> 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/

But IPQ5424 is already there, so you reworked that patch.


> 
>>
>>> 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. 

Where is such ordering documented? How is it expressed in your internal
guideline for example?

Best regards,
Krzysztof