linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 2/4] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8650: Enable MCQ support for UFS controller

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e263d0b4-04e9-4d65-ad43-197573b66721@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 19:13:04 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Ram Kumar Dwivedi <quic_rdwivedi@...cinc.com>, mani@...nel.org,
 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, agross@...nel.org,
 James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/4] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8650: Enable MCQ support for
 UFS controller

On 11/08/2025 18:54, Ram Kumar Dwivedi wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11-Aug-25 8:13 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 11/08/2025 16:31, Ram Kumar Dwivedi wrote:
>>> Enable Multi-Circular Queue (MCQ) support for the UFS host controller
>>> on the Qualcomm SM8650 platform by updating the device tree node. This
>>> includes adding new register region for MCQ and specifying the MSI parent
>>> required for MCQ operation.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ram Kumar Dwivedi <quic_rdwivedi@...cinc.com>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650.dtsi | 7 ++++++-
>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> Way you organize your patchset is confusing. Why DTS is in the middle?
>> It suggests dependency and this would be strong objection from me.
> 
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> My current patch submission order is as follows:
> 
> 1.DT binding
> 2.Device tree
> 3.Driver changes

Why are you repeating the obvious? That order is INCORRECT and that is
why I commented.

> 
> Please let me know if you'd prefer to rearrange the order and place the driver patch in the middle.

I need to you read the documents I mentioned. It is your task to read
the docs, not asking me to quote them again because you do not bother
with that.


Best regards,
Krzysztof