[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f87a8caf-6c65-48b8-a372-1ebff95cb6f8@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 08:11:52 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Pradeep P V K <pradeep.pragallapati@....qualcomm.com>, vkoul@...nel.org,
neil.armstrong@...aro.org, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
conor+dt@...nel.org, martin.petersen@...cle.com, andersson@...nel.org,
konradybcio@...nel.org, taniya.das@....qualcomm.com,
dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, nitin.rawat@....qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 1/4] scsi: ufs: phy: dt-bindings: Add QMP UFS PHY
compatible for Hamoa
On 29/12/2025 07:06, Pradeep P V K wrote:
> Document the QMP UFS PHY compatible for Qualcomm Hamoa to support
> physical layer functionality for UFS found on the SoC. Use fallback to
> indicate the compatibility of the QMP UFS PHY on the Hamoa with that
> on the SM8550.
Last sentence is pointless. You keep explaining what you did, but you
did not say why. Why Hamoa is compatible with SM8550, but not with SM8650?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists