linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] arm64: dts: qcom: r0q: enable ufs storage

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: <289A60D2-9184-4DAC-BE41-D202F02361B5@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2025 12:49:55 -0300
From: Eric Gonçalves <ghatto404@...il.com>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>,
 Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
CC: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] arm64: dts: qcom: r0q: enable ufs storage



On October 6, 2025 9:08:54 AM GMT-03:00, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com> wrote:
>On 9/25/25 11:37 PM, Eric Gonçalves wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On September 25, 2025 10:07:31 AM GMT-03:00, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/20/25 3:46 AM, Eric Gonçalves wrote:
>>>> Enable UFS internal storage of the Samsung Galaxy S22.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Gonçalves <ghatto404@...il.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  .../boot/dts/qcom/sm8450-samsung-r0q.dts      | 39 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450-samsung-r0q.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450-samsung-r0q.dts
>>>> index c088f1acf6ea..0a55ce952f93 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450-samsung-r0q.dts
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450-samsung-r0q.dts
>>>> @@ -146,6 +146,24 @@ vreg_l5b_0p88: ldo5 {
>>>>  			regulator-max-microvolt = <888000>;
>>>>  			regulator-initial-mode = <RPMH_REGULATOR_MODE_HPM>;
>>>>  		};
>>>> +
>>>> +		vreg_l6b_1p2: ldo6 {
>>>> +			regulator-min-microvolt = <1200000>;
>>>> +			regulator-max-microvolt = <1200000>;
>>>> +			regulator-initial-mode = <RPMH_REGULATOR_MODE_HPM>;
>>>> +		};
>>>> +
>>>> +		vreg_l7b_2p5: ldo7 {
>>>> +			regulator-min-microvolt = <2504000>;
>>>> +			regulator-max-microvolt = <2504000>;
>>>> +			regulator-initial-mode = <RPMH_REGULATOR_MODE_HPM>;
>>>> +		};
>>>> +
>>>> +		vreg_l9b_1p2: ldo9 {
>>>> +			regulator-min-microvolt = <1200000>;
>>>> +			regulator-max-microvolt = <1200000>;
>>>> +			regulator-initial-mode = <RPMH_REGULATOR_MODE_HPM>;
>>>> +		};
>>>>  	};
>>>>  
>>>>  	regulators-1 {
>>>> @@ -370,6 +388,27 @@ tsp_int_sleep: tsp_int_sleep_state {
>>>>  	};
>>>>  };
>>>>  
>>>> +&ufs_mem_hc {
>>>> +	reset-gpios = <&tlmm 210 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
>>>> +
>>>> +	vcc-supply = <&vreg_l7b_2p5>;
>>>> +	vcc-max-microamp = <1100000>;
>>>
>>> because you set this, you should also set regulator-allow-set-mode and
>>> regulator-allowed-modes
>>>
>>> Konrad
>> Why is that necessary?
>
>Because that is then translated into the mode selection, based on
>the aggregated usage
>
>That said, you may also choose to omit this if you want to run all
>regulators at high-power mode (less efficient at idle), which forcefully
>ensures you're not hitting any current limits 
Will do, thanks
>
>Konrad