linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: cpus: Add Qualcomm Oryon 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: <44474c4c-fcc6-4508-b311-de5c4636c75b@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 10:00:30 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: "Aiqun(Maria) Yu" <aiqun.yu@....qualcomm.com>,
 Jingyi Wang <jingyi.wang@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Lorenzo Pieralisi
 <lpieralisi@...nel.org>, tingwei.zhang@....qualcomm.com,
 trilok.soni@....qualcomm.com, yijie.yang@....qualcomm.com,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: cpus: Add Qualcomm Oryon compatibles

On 20/11/2025 09:50, Aiqun(Maria) Yu wrote:
> On 11/20/2025 4:24 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 09:50:53PM -0800, Jingyi Wang wrote:
>>> Previous "qcom,oryon" is too generic, add specific cpu bindings:
>>
>> Why is too generic? Why gen1/2/3 is not generic? Both sound exactly the
>> same for me - arbitrary number incremented from 1 does not make it less
>> generic.
> 
> This is align the qualcomm announced cpu information, there is no other
> more information revealed publicly. The reference is from [1].
> For me, it is likely the generation numbers information is having more
> information compare to "qcom,oryon". And the current patch is to be
> address the comments like [2]. What's your specific suggestion on this pls?

There is no context in this commit msg and patch is sent completely
without users, so how anyone can guess above?

The original compatible was never acked by any DT maintainers. What's
more Konrad raised objections to it at v1 (!!!) 2 years ago and provided
the answer what is expected.

It is not my task to dig old thread like that, because it is not me who
proposes this patch.

You are doing it for some reason, so you must come with the background
and the rationale.

Best regards,
Krzysztof