linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: soc: qcom: qcom,pmic-glink: Add Kaanapali and Glymur compatibles

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: <4e7f4211-3194-409a-b33c-e47bfdfdb203@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 10:21:44 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>,
 Anjelique Melendez <anjelique.melendez@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: andersson@...nel.org, konradybcio@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org,
 krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: soc: qcom: qcom,pmic-glink: Add
 Kaanapali and Glymur compatibles

On 28/10/2025 10:19, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Anjelique Melendez <anjelique.melendez@....qualcomm.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml      | 7 +++++++
>>>>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml
>>>>>> index 7085bf88afab..c57022109419 100644
>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml
>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml
>>>>>> @@ -37,12 +37,19 @@ properties:
>>>>>>            - const: qcom,pmic-glink
>>>>>>        - items:
>>>>>>            - enum:
>>>>>> +              - qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink
>>>>>>                - qcom,milos-pmic-glink
>>>>>>                - qcom,sm8650-pmic-glink
>>>>>>                - qcom,sm8750-pmic-glink
>>>>>
>>>>> Why qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink is not compatible with
>>>>> qcom,sm8750-pmic-glink? If Glymur is compatible with previous
>>>>> generation, I would expect that here too.
>>>>
>>>> And again to re-iterate:
>>>>
>>>> If X1E is compatible with SM8550 AND:
>>>> SM8750 is compatible with SM8550 THEN
>>>> WHY Glymur is compatible with previous generation but Kaanapali is not
>>>> compatible with previous generation?
>>>
>>> The announcement date does not directly correlate to 'generation'
>> I don't know exactly this IP block/component, but in general these SoCs
>> follow some sort of previous design, thus term "generation" is correct
>> in many cases. Anyway don't be picky about wording.
>>
>> You can remove the generation and statement will be the same.
>>
>> If A is compatible with B AND
>> C is compatible with B
>> THEN
>>
>> WHY D is compatible with (A and B) but E is not
>> compatible with (C and B)?
>>
>> Easier for you?
>>
>> Why nitpicking on wording "generation" instead of explaining the
>> problems or issues with bindings...
> 
> What I'm saying is that Kaanapali and Glymur are disjoint projects
> that shouldn't be thought of as having a common base


No, please go through my A B C D E list to understand the problem. I did
not suggest what you reply here.

Best regards,
Krzysztof