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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5c4864fa-bf73-4397-8098-2a28f31c81f5@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 12:21:02 +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 10:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 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.
> 


For the context here was Konrad's request:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/b165d2cd-e8da-4f6d-9ecf-14df2b803614@linaro.org/

Best regards,
Krzysztof