linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] spi: dt-bindings: spi-qpic-snand: Add IPQ5424 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: <ab658b67-6f3b-e1ae-84fd-46f431c5bc0d@quicinc.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 20:56:43 +0530
From: Md Sadre Alam <quic_mdalam@...cinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: <robh@...nel.org>, <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        <andersson@...nel.org>, <konradybcio@...nel.org>, <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>, <quic_varada@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] spi: dt-bindings: spi-qpic-snand: Add IPQ5424
 compatible

Hi,

On 10/22/2025 4:31 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 22/10/2025 08:59, Md Sadre Alam wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 10/22/2025 12:39 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 04:35:26PM +0530, Md Sadre Alam wrote:
>>>> IPQ5424 contains the QPIC-SPI-NAND flash controller which is the same as
>>>> the one found in IPQ9574. So let's document the IPQ5424 compatible and
>>>> use IPQ9574 as the fallback.
>>>
>>> This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend.
>> Thank you for the feedback. I’d appreciate a bit more clarity on what
>> “doesn't apply against current code” refers to in this context. I’ve
>> manually applied the patch against the latest mainline (torvalds/linux)
> 
> 
> You can easily answer this by yourself. Did you send it to Torvalds? No.
> You sent it to someone else, so why do you assume someone else manages
> Torvalds' tree?
Sorry about that — I’ll make sure to verify and align with the correct 
subsystem tree going forward.
> 
>> and it applied cleanly without any conflicts. Please let me know if
>> there’s a specific tree or integration point I should be checking against.
> 
> 
> Please read submitting patches - it explains that. It also explains
> where to find the tree.
Thanks, I’ll go through Submitting Patches again and make sure I follow 
the right tree and workflow.

Thanks,
Alam.