linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V1 1/4] scsi: ufs: phy: dt-bindings: Add QMP UFS PHY compatible for Hamoa

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: <9514be98-2bb4-423a-919c-eacd4b384f79@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 10:38:38 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Pradeep Pragallapati <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 30/12/2025 10:05, Pradeep Pragallapati wrote:
> 
> On 12/29/2025 12:41 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> 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?
> i will update in my next patchset.

Actually the problem is that you introduced completely new SoC name -
Hamoa - so that's why I was wondering. If you used correct name, X1E, it
would be more logical as it is basically SM8550.

But then follow up question - why are you duplicating existing patches?

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20250814005904.39173-2-harrison.vanderbyl@gmail.com/

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/p3mhtj2rp6y2ezuwpd2gu7dwx5cbckfu4s4pazcudi4j2wogtr@4yecb2bkeyms/

Best regards,
Krzysztof