linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 0/4] Add level shifter support for qualcomm SOC's

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: <65c430990c9fef0325c6b12ac6482b90@manjaro.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2025 07:28:56 +0200
From: Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Sarthak Garg <quic_sartgarg@...cinc.com>, Ulf Hansson
 <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor
 Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Konrad
 Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
 linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com, quic_rampraka@...cinc.com,
 quic_pragalla@...cinc.com, quic_sayalil@...cinc.com,
 quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com, quic_bhaskarv@...cinc.com,
 kernel@....qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 0/4] Add level shifter support for qualcomm SOC's

Hello Rob,

On 2025-09-03 22:42, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 10:24:55AM +0200, Dragan Simic wrote:
>> On 2025-09-03 10:04, Sarthak Garg wrote:
>> > Add level shifter support for qualcomm SOC's.
>> >
>> > - Changed from v4
>> >     - As suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski Renamed the property from
>> >     `max-sd-hs-frequency` to `max-sd-hs-hz` for clarity.
>> 
>> I just spotted this series, so I'm sorry for jumping in late.  To me,
>> "max-sd-hs-frequency" was actually a better choice, because it goes
>> together with the already existing "max-frequency" property.
>> 
>> Yes, "max-sd-hs-hz" is obviously more clear, but to me, consistency
>> is more important.  Just my $.02.
> 
> It's about defining the property units as 'frequency' could be kHz, 
> MHz,
> etc. Unfortunately 'max-frequency' existed before standardizing with
> units.

I see, thanks for the clarification.  In that case, we should perhaps
declare the "max-frequency" property obsolete and substitute it with new
"max-hz" property.  I'll see to whip up an RFC patch for that.

Hmm, there's also the "spi-max-frequency" property, for example, which
would also benefit from becoming replaced with "spi-max-hz".  That 
should
be another RFC patch. :)