linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: qcom: Commonize IQ-X-IOT DTSI

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1f856ebc-acbf-44f3-ac16-d21baac99033@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2026 16:14:12 +0800
From: Tingwei Zhang <tingwei.zhang@....qualcomm.com>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Yijie Yang <yijie.yang@....qualcomm.com>, andersson@...nel.org,
        konradybcio@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
        conor+dt@...nel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: qcom: Commonize IQ-X-IOT DTSI



On 1/6/2026 11:26 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 11:05:30AM +0800, Tingwei Zhang wrote:
>>
>> On 1/6/2026 9:47 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 09:24:38AM +0800, Tingwei Zhang wrote:
>>>> On 1/5/2026 11:09 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 05/01/2026 06:36, Tingwei Zhang wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/30/2025 3:21 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/12/2025 21:08, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 09:47:05AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 29/12/2025 08:38, Yijie Yang wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/2025 3:21 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/12/2025 02:23, Tingwei Zhang wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/24/2025 8:12 AM, Tingwei Zhang wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/23/2025 9:41 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/12/2025 04:38, Tingwei Zhang wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/22/2025 5:11 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 02:03:28PM +0800, YijieYang wrote:
>>>>> If this was the same SoM, just with different SoC soldered, it would
>>>>> have the same PMICs. Different PMICs means different SoM...
>>>> I agree. It's not same SoM, but they are very similar with same circuit board.
>>>>> Anyway, I shared my opinion and I am not going to spend more time on
>>>>> this. It should not be my task to go through schematics and prove that
>>>>> PMICs differ. Authors should.
>>>> We will make it more clear in the description about PMIC difference.
>>>> Since we have the agreement that Hamoa/Purwa modules are very similar,
>>>> we will use common dtsi in next version. Please let me know if you think
>>>> that's not correct thing to do.
>>> I think, you have been clearly told _not_ _to_. You have agreed that
>>> they are not the same module. So, please stop.
>>>
>> From hardware side, I think we are on same page. Hamoa and Purwa modules
>> are not same SoM, but they are very similar. The only difference is different
>> SoC, PCI, APC supply and one PMIC. The circuit boards are same.
>> We have exactly same case on Hamoa/Purwa CRD which uses a common
>> dtsi.
>> Can we use common dtsi for the hardware boards which are very similar?
>> Is that very strict that the hardware boards have to be exactly same?
> I don't have a very strict opinion about the shared DTSIs. However, I
> really want to point out: you got an review comment that it is
> unacceptable, you never got a comment that it's fine, nevertheless you
> want to ignore that review comment, coming from DT bindings maintainer.
> In 99% of the cases _ignoring_ the comment is a very wrong idea.
>
> From my PoV, asking to "Please let me know if you think that's not
> correct thing to do." after you got all the previous emails is rude.
>
I had understood that boards with very similar designs could utilize common devices
such as the Hamoa/Purwa CRD, and that we had aligned on the similarity between
the Hamoa and Purwa SoM boards. If this assumption is incorrect, please accept
my apologies.