Re: [PATCH v9 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8750: Add USB support for SM8750 QRD platform

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 29/10/2025 12:42, Krishna Kurapati PSSNV wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/29/2025 1:37 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 24/10/2025 17:15, Krishna Kurapati wrote:
>>> From: Wesley Cheng <wesley.cheng@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>
>>> Enable USB support on SM8750 QRD variant.  The current definition
>>> will start the USB controller in peripheral mode by default until
>>> dependencies are added, such as USB role detection.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wesley Cheng <wesley.cheng@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>> [Krishna: Flattened usb node QRD DTS]
>>> Signed-off-by: Krishna Kurapati <krishna.kurapati@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>
>> NAK.
>>
>> You ignored every previous tag - multiple reviews and tests, and then...
>>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8750-qrd.dts | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8750-qrd.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8750-qrd.dts
>>> index 13c7b9664c89..fc5d12bb41a5 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8750-qrd.dts
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8750-qrd.dts
>>> @@ -1054,3 +1054,25 @@ &ufs_mem_hc {
>>>   
>>>   	status = "okay";
>>>   };
>>> +
>>> +&usb_1 {
>>> +	dr_mode = "peripheral";
>>
>> You sent something different with issues.
>>
>> Really, this was a correct patch. Was reviewed. Why you decided to drop
>> all this, drop everything which was correct?
>>
>> Your explanation:
>> "- Removed obtained RB tags since the code has changed significantly."
>> is just wrong. Almost NOTHING changed, except completely unimportant two
>> node merging.
>>
>> NAK
>>
> 
> 
> Apologies Krzysztof,
> 
> On first patch that adds changes to base DTSI, there were changes moving 
> to newer bindings and merging child node and parent node. I should've 
> removed RB tags received on that patch only. But I was over cautious and 
> misinterpreted the rules and removed them on the other patches as well. 
> Will be careful the next time.
> 
> Also is there any issue with marking dr_mode as peripheral here in usb_1 
> node ?

No, I think I looked at your other patch. Tthis was reviewed at v4 and
v5, which then it was changed breaking sorting order. This one looks
correct.

Best regards,
Krzysztof