linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sa8155: Add gear and rate limit properties to UFS

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: <1701ec08-21bc-45b8-90bc-1cd64401abd8@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 11:12:42 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Ram Kumar Dwivedi <quic_rdwivedi@...cinc.com>,
 Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>
Cc: alim.akhtar@...sung.com, avri.altman@....com, bvanassche@....org,
 robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
 andersson@...nel.org, konradybcio@...nel.org,
 James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
 agross@...nel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sa8155: Add gear and rate limit
 properties to UFS

On 01/08/2025 11:10, Ram Kumar Dwivedi wrote:
> 
> 
> On 01-Aug-25 1:58 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 09:48:53AM GMT, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 22/07/2025 18:11, Ram Kumar Dwivedi wrote:
>>>> Add optional limit-hs-gear and limit-rate properties to the UFS node to
>>>> support automotive use cases that require limiting the maximum Tx/Rx HS
>>>> gear and rate due to hardware constraints.
>>>
>>> What hardware constraints? This needs to be clearly documented.
>>>
>>
>> Ram, both Krzysztof and I asked this question, but you never bothered to reply,
>> but keep on responding to other comments. This won't help you to get this series
>> merged in any form.
>>
>> Please address *all* review comments before posting next iteration.
> 
> Hi Mani,
> 
> Apologies for the delay in responding. 
> I had planned to explain the hardware constraints in the next patchset’s commit message, which is why I didn’t reply earlier. 
> 
> To clarify: the limitations are due to customer board designs, not our SoC. Some boards can't support higher gear operation, hence the need for optional limit-hs-gear and limit-rate properties.
> 

That's vague and does not justify the property. You need to document
instead hardware capabilities or characteristic. Or explain why they
cannot. With such form I will object to your next patch.

Best regards,
Krzysztof