linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 4/5] 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: <ba227580-add8-4ea8-a973-c39083301e67@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2025 10:43:09 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>
Cc: Ram Kumar Dwivedi <quic_rdwivedi@...cinc.com>, andersson@...nel.org,
 konradybcio@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
 conor+dt@...nel.org, James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com,
 martin.petersen@...cle.com, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 4/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8650: Enable MCQ support for
 UFS controller

On 29/08/2025 18:18, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 01:49:36PM GMT, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 21/08/2025 13:24, 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 ++++++-
>>
>> I don't understand why you combine DTS patch into UFS patchset. This
>> creates impression of dependent work, which would be a trouble for merging.
>>
> 
> What trouble? Even if the DTS depends on the driver/bindings change, can't it
> still go through a different tree for the same cycle? It happened previously as

It all depends on sort of dependency.

> well, unless the rule changed now.

No, the point is that there is absolutely nothing relevant between the
DTS and drivers here. Combining unrelated patches, completely different
ones, targeting different subsystems into one patchset was always a
mistake. This makes only life of maintainers more difficult, for no gain.


Best regards,
Krzysztof