linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] arm64: dts: qcom: Add base PURWA-IOT-EVK board

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: <eawxuhblnho4pyeyskvk5s4ouqser7o5jh267ttinzeeowxfxs@y6nl2qbdydb2>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 08:33:41 +0200
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>
To: Yijie Yang <yijie.yang@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, 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 v4 4/4] arm64: dts: qcom: Add base PURWA-IOT-EVK board

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 11:13:29AM +0800, Yijie Yang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/17/2026 12:19 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 16/01/2026 11:41, YijieYang wrote:
> > > From: Yijie Yang <yijie.yang@....qualcomm.com>
> > > 
> > > The PURWA-IOT-EVK is an evaluation platform for IoT products, composed of
> > > the Purwa IoT SoM and a carrier board. Together, they form a complete
> > > embedded system capable of booting to UART.
> > > 
> > > PURWA-IOT-EVK uses the PS8833 as a retimer for USB0, unlike HAMOA-IOT-EVK.
> > > Meanwhile, USB0 bypasses the SBU selector FSUSB42.
> > > 
> > 
> > NAK.
> > 
> > Warnings were reported at v3. Did you address them? No, you completely
> > ignored them, so warnings are reported again at v4.
> > 
> > What do you think these emails are for?
> 
> This warning is caused by the pcie3_phy node in purwa.dtsi, which is not
> introduced by this patch set. Since it does not impact functionality, would
> it be appropriate to fix it in a separate patch?

Why can't it be fixed as a part of this patchset?

> 
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Krzysztof
> 
> -- 
> Best Regards,
> Yijie
> 

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry