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: <3ac1efc5-4c17-410e-8a84-948e5c9cdd1a@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 20:53:49 +0530
From: Ram Kumar Dwivedi <quic_rdwivedi@...cinc.com>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>
CC: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, <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>,
        <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 12-Aug-25 4:25 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 10:24:29PM +0530, 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
>>
>> Please let me know if you'd prefer to rearrange the order and place the driver patch in the middle.
> 
> THe recommended way is opposite:
> 
> - DT bindings
> - Driver changes
> - DT changes
> 
> This lets maintainers to pick up their parts with less troubles.

Hi Dmitry and Krzysztof,

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll update the next patchset order to
follow the recommended structure:
1. DT bindings
2. Driver changes
3. DT changes

Appreciate the guidance.

Thanks,
Ram.

> 
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ram
>>>
>>> Please read carefully writing bindings, submitting patches in DT and SoC
>>> maintainer profile.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof
>>
>