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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b049c4be-f3c1-49e4-8737-c29c52185e60@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2025 10:05:56 +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 01/09/2025 06:15, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
> 
> Ok. Since patch 2 is just a refactoring, it should not be required for enabling
> MCQ. But it is not clear if that is the case.
> 
> @Ram/Nitin: Please confirm if MCQ can be enabled without patch 2. If yes, then
> post the DTS separately, otherwise, you need to rewrite the commit message of
> patch 2 to state it explicitly.

Dependency of DTS on driver would be another issue and in any case must
be clearly documented, not implicit via patch order.

Best regards,
Krzysztof