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

From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
To: Pradeep Pragallapati <pradeep.pragallapati@oss.qualcomm.com>,
	vkoul@kernel.org, neil.armstrong@linaro.org, robh@kernel.org,
	krzk+dt@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
	martin.petersen@oracle.com, andersson@kernel.org,
	konradybcio@kernel.org, taniya.das@oss.qualcomm.com,
	dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com
Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-phy@lists.infradead.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, nitin.rawat@oss.qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 1/4] scsi: ufs: phy: dt-bindings: Add QMP UFS PHY compatible for Hamoa
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 10:38:38 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9514be98-2bb4-423a-919c-eacd4b384f79@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <86c649c8-7529-45c0-be13-93ff8f05aa44@oss.qualcomm.com>

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