linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] dt-bindings: ufs: qcom: Split SC7280 and similar into separate file

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: <148b46f3-2109-4c15-b7d8-17963b38095a@quicinc.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 12:29:04 +0530
From: Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski
	<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        "Avri Altman" <avri.altman@....com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, "Rob Herring" <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        "Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam
	<mani@...nel.org>,
        "Bjorn Andersson" <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Andy Gross
	<agross@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Ram Kumar
 Dwivedi" <quic_rdwivedi@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] dt-bindings: ufs: qcom: Split SC7280 and similar into
 separate file



On 7/30/2025 7:55 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 30/07/2025 15:53, Nitin Rawat wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2025 6:05 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> The binding for Qualcomm SoC UFS controllers grew and it will grow
>>> further.  It already includes several conditionals, partially for
>>> difference in handling encryption block (ICE, either as phandle or as IO
>>> address space) but it will further grow for MCQ.
>>>
>>> See also: lore.kernel.org/r/20250730082229.23475-1-quic_rdwivedi@...cinc.com
>>>
>>> The question is whether SM8650 and SM8750 should have their own schemas,
>>> but based on bindings above I think all devices here have MCQ?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
>> If I understand correctly, you're splitting the YAML files based on MCQ
>> (Multi-Circular Queue) support:
> 
> Not entirely, I don't know which devices support MCQ. I split based on
> common parts in the binding.
> 
>>
>> -qcom,sc7280-ufshc.yaml includes targets that support MCQ
>> -qcom,ufs-common.yaml includes common properties
>> -qcom,ufs.yaml includes targets that do not support MCQ
>>
>>
>> In future, if a new property applies to both some MCQ and some
>> non-MCQ targets, we would need to update both YAML files. In the current
> 
> No
> 
>> implementation, we handle such cases using if-else conditions to include
>> the new property.
> 
> Hm?
> 
>>
>> For reference, only SM8650 and SM8750 currently support MCQ, though more
>> targets may be added later.
> 
> Are you sure? Are you claiming that SM8550 hardware does not support MCQ?

Offcourse I can say that because I am working on Qualcomm UFS Driver.

> 
>>
>> Regarding the patch
>> lore.kernel.org/r/20250730082229.23475-1-quic_rdwivedi@...cinc.com,
>> instead of using two separate YAML files, we could use if-else
>> conditions to differentiate the reg and reg-name properties between MCQ
>> targets (SM8650 and SM8750) and non-MCQ targets (all others).
> 
> It's a mess already and you want to make it messy. I already responded
> on that.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof