linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] i2c: qcom-cci: Add msm8953 compatible

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: <f956eccec6b8ae2737b1e758b8357051@lucaweiss.eu>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 09:12:48 +0200
From: Luca Weiss <luca@...aweiss.eu>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
Cc: Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@....qualcomm.com>, Robert Foss
 <rfoss@...nel.org>, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, 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>, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
 ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] i2c: qcom-cci: Add msm8953 compatible

Hi Wolfram,

On 2025-08-11 14:13, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 05:37:53PM +0200, Luca Weiss wrote:
>> Add a config for the v1.2.5 CCI found on msm8953 which has different
> 
> Given the above version number...
> 
>>  static const struct of_device_id cci_dt_match[] = {
>>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,msm8226-cci", .data = &cci_v1_data},
>> +	{ .compatible = "qcom,msm8953-cci", .data = &cci_msm8953_data},
> 
> ... why don't we use it here to stay consistent? cci_v1_2_5_data?

I don't think the existing 'v2' or 'v1' configs have much to do with the 
actual
HW_VERSION of the IP block. For example on of the newer Qualcomm SoCs 
has HW
version 1.7.0 and is many years newer than the msm8996 which was called 
'v2'.

I'm also not sure what these parameters depend on, if it's CCI HW 
version, or
something else. So naming it after the SoC should be a safer bet. Also 
the
msm8974-cci was only named 'v1.5' because it's an inbetween mix of the 
v1 and
v2 that were already upstream so arguably that one shouldn't have been 
called
v1.5 in the first place either.

Let me know what you think. Maybe also someone from Qualcomm/Linaro can 
jump
in and share their thoughts, if someone knows more what these params 
depend on.

Regards
Luca

> 
>>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,msm8974-cci", .data = &cci_v1_5_data},
>>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,msm8996-cci", .data = &cci_v2_data},