linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: sram: qcom,imem: Document glymur as compatible

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: <aXhiQB6oKHXPKPB_@hu-anancv-lv.qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 22:59:12 -0800
From: Ananthu C V <ananthu.cv@....qualcomm.com>
To: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: sram: qcom,imem: Document glymur as
 compatible

On Sat, Jan 24, 2026 at 09:57:18PM +0530, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
> 
> On 1/23/2026 3:46 PM, Ananthu C V wrote:
> > Add compatible for Qualcomm's glymur IMEM.
> 
> Shouldn't we use "mmio-sram" binding? Please note, starting from
> "kaanapali", IMEM is described as "mmio-sram". If we need to stick with this
> binding, please describe the same on why so?
> 

Great, thanks for this review. Initially Krzysztof also pointed out in v1 that
the placement is wrong (thanks Krzysztof). But I couldn't find internal docs
regarding this and since I missed out on sorting it, I thought that was the
wrong placement. I see that the kaanapali imem binding thread has sufficient
info on this, so I'll test with mmio-sram and make a revision if that works.