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 13:08:11 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <dad6d254-d833-451e-bff1-eeb35876a2b0@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d3d63b08-43ba-4b25-a939-416d5d647098@oss.qualcomm.com>

On 30/12/2025 12:13, Pradeep Pragallapati wrote:
> 
> On 12/30/2025 3:08 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> 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/
> 
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> I’m not familiar with these patches in detail, but I noticed several gaps:
> 
>   * The UFSHC compatibility string was not added in the correct file.
>   * Fallback compatibility was not utilized.
>   * A PHY clock entry is missing.
>   * OPP framework is not used for clock frequency configuration.
>   * |dma-coherency| entry is missing.
>   * UFS nodes are not sorted.
>   * Clock provider entries for the GCC node are missing.
> 
> Additionally, there hasn’t been any follow-up on the comments since 
> August 2025. So, I’d like to take this up with my
> 
> current series.
> 
> Please let me know your thoughts.
> 
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/p3mhtj2rp6y2ezuwpd2gu7dwx5cbckfu4s4pazcudi4j2wogtr@4yecb2bkeyms/

The ones here received review. I prefer not to re-review just because
you want to go with your series...

But if you insist, at least do it right. You are re-doing the same work
in worse way.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

-- 
linux-phy mailing list
linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy