IPQ5424 contains the QPIC-SPI-NAND flash controller which is the same as
the one found in IPQ9574. So let's document the IPQ5424 compatible and
use IPQ9574 as the fallback.
Acked-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Md Sadre Alam <quic_mdalam@quicinc.com>
---
Change in [v3]
* No Change
Change in [v2]
* Added Acked-by tag
Change in [v1]
* Added support for qcom,ipq5424-snand compatible string to the device
tree bindings.
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/qcom,spi-qpic-snand.yaml | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/qcom,spi-qpic-snand.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/qcom,spi-qpic-snand.yaml
index cb1f15224b45..39e086ced891 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/qcom,spi-qpic-snand.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/qcom,spi-qpic-snand.yaml
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ properties:
- items:
- enum:
- qcom,ipq5018-snand
+ - qcom,ipq5424-snand
- const: qcom,ipq9574-snand
- const: qcom,ipq9574-snand
--
2.34.1On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 04:35:26PM +0530, Md Sadre Alam wrote: > IPQ5424 contains the QPIC-SPI-NAND flash controller which is the same as > the one found in IPQ9574. So let's document the IPQ5424 compatible and > use IPQ9574 as the fallback. This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend.
Hi, On 10/22/2025 12:39 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 04:35:26PM +0530, Md Sadre Alam wrote: >> IPQ5424 contains the QPIC-SPI-NAND flash controller which is the same as >> the one found in IPQ9574. So let's document the IPQ5424 compatible and >> use IPQ9574 as the fallback. > > This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend. Thank you for the feedback. I’d appreciate a bit more clarity on what “doesn't apply against current code” refers to in this context. I’ve manually applied the patch against the latest mainline (torvalds/linux) and it applied cleanly without any conflicts. Please let me know if there’s a specific tree or integration point I should be checking against. Thanks, Alam.
On 22/10/2025 08:59, Md Sadre Alam wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/22/2025 12:39 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 04:35:26PM +0530, Md Sadre Alam wrote: >>> IPQ5424 contains the QPIC-SPI-NAND flash controller which is the same as >>> the one found in IPQ9574. So let's document the IPQ5424 compatible and >>> use IPQ9574 as the fallback. >> >> This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend. > Thank you for the feedback. I’d appreciate a bit more clarity on what > “doesn't apply against current code” refers to in this context. I’ve > manually applied the patch against the latest mainline (torvalds/linux) You can easily answer this by yourself. Did you send it to Torvalds? No. You sent it to someone else, so why do you assume someone else manages Torvalds' tree? > and it applied cleanly without any conflicts. Please let me know if > there’s a specific tree or integration point I should be checking against. Please read submitting patches - it explains that. It also explains where to find the tree. Best regards, Krzysztof
Hi, On 10/22/2025 4:31 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 22/10/2025 08:59, Md Sadre Alam wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 10/22/2025 12:39 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 04:35:26PM +0530, Md Sadre Alam wrote: >>>> IPQ5424 contains the QPIC-SPI-NAND flash controller which is the same as >>>> the one found in IPQ9574. So let's document the IPQ5424 compatible and >>>> use IPQ9574 as the fallback. >>> >>> This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend. >> Thank you for the feedback. I’d appreciate a bit more clarity on what >> “doesn't apply against current code” refers to in this context. I’ve >> manually applied the patch against the latest mainline (torvalds/linux) > > > You can easily answer this by yourself. Did you send it to Torvalds? No. > You sent it to someone else, so why do you assume someone else manages > Torvalds' tree? Sorry about that — I’ll make sure to verify and align with the correct subsystem tree going forward. > >> and it applied cleanly without any conflicts. Please let me know if >> there’s a specific tree or integration point I should be checking against. > > > Please read submitting patches - it explains that. It also explains > where to find the tree. Thanks, I’ll go through Submitting Patches again and make sure I follow the right tree and workflow. Thanks, Alam.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 12:29:01PM +0530, Md Sadre Alam wrote: > On 10/22/2025 12:39 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 04:35:26PM +0530, Md Sadre Alam wrote: > > > IPQ5424 contains the QPIC-SPI-NAND flash controller which is the same as > > > the one found in IPQ9574. So let's document the IPQ5424 compatible and > > > use IPQ9574 as the fallback. > > This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend. > Thank you for the feedback. I’d appreciate a bit more clarity on what > “doesn't apply against current code” refers to in this context. I’ve > manually applied the patch against the latest mainline (torvalds/linux) and > it applied cleanly without any conflicts. Please let me know if there’s a > specific tree or integration point I should be checking against. I tried to apply it to the spi tree https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-6.19
Hi, On 10/22/2025 4:12 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 12:29:01PM +0530, Md Sadre Alam wrote: >> On 10/22/2025 12:39 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 04:35:26PM +0530, Md Sadre Alam wrote: >>>> IPQ5424 contains the QPIC-SPI-NAND flash controller which is the same as >>>> the one found in IPQ9574. So let's document the IPQ5424 compatible and >>>> use IPQ9574 as the fallback. > >>> This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend. > >> Thank you for the feedback. I’d appreciate a bit more clarity on what >> “doesn't apply against current code” refers to in this context. I’ve >> manually applied the patch against the latest mainline (torvalds/linux) and >> it applied cleanly without any conflicts. Please let me know if there’s a >> specific tree or integration point I should be checking against. > > I tried to apply it to the spi tree > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-6.19 I had sent v3 on the 14th, but since v2 was already applied on the 15th and v3 was just a resend, the error on reapplying makes sense. Everything looks in order now, and no further action is needed. Thanks, Alam.
Hi, On 10/22/2025 4:12 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 12:29:01PM +0530, Md Sadre Alam wrote: >> On 10/22/2025 12:39 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 04:35:26PM +0530, Md Sadre Alam wrote: >>>> IPQ5424 contains the QPIC-SPI-NAND flash controller which is the same as >>>> the one found in IPQ9574. So let's document the IPQ5424 compatible and >>>> use IPQ9574 as the fallback. > >>> This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend. > >> Thank you for the feedback. I’d appreciate a bit more clarity on what >> “doesn't apply against current code” refers to in this context. I’ve >> manually applied the patch against the latest mainline (torvalds/linux) and >> it applied cleanly without any conflicts. Please let me know if there’s a >> specific tree or integration point I should be checking against. > > I tried to apply it to the spi tree > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-6.19 Thanks for letting me know — I’ll rebase the patch on the SPI tree (for-6.19) and resend it. Thanks, Alam.
On 10/22/25 5:20 PM, Md Sadre Alam wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/22/2025 4:12 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 12:29:01PM +0530, Md Sadre Alam wrote: >>> On 10/22/2025 12:39 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 04:35:26PM +0530, Md Sadre Alam wrote: >>>>> IPQ5424 contains the QPIC-SPI-NAND flash controller which is the same as >>>>> the one found in IPQ9574. So let's document the IPQ5424 compatible and >>>>> use IPQ9574 as the fallback. >> >>>> This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend. >> >>> Thank you for the feedback. I’d appreciate a bit more clarity on what >>> “doesn't apply against current code” refers to in this context. I’ve >>> manually applied the patch against the latest mainline (torvalds/linux) and >>> it applied cleanly without any conflicts. Please let me know if there’s a >>> specific tree or integration point I should be checking against. >> >> I tried to apply it to the spi tree >> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-6.19 > Thanks for letting me know — I’ll rebase the patch on the SPI tree (for-6.19) and resend it. JFYI you can generally count on linux-next/master as a good base Konrad
On 10/22/2025 8:58 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 10/22/25 5:20 PM, Md Sadre Alam wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 10/22/2025 4:12 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 12:29:01PM +0530, Md Sadre Alam wrote: >>>> On 10/22/2025 12:39 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 04:35:26PM +0530, Md Sadre Alam wrote: >>>>>> IPQ5424 contains the QPIC-SPI-NAND flash controller which is the same as >>>>>> the one found in IPQ9574. So let's document the IPQ5424 compatible and >>>>>> use IPQ9574 as the fallback. >>> >>>>> This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend. >>> >>>> Thank you for the feedback. I’d appreciate a bit more clarity on what >>>> “doesn't apply against current code” refers to in this context. I’ve >>>> manually applied the patch against the latest mainline (torvalds/linux) and >>>> it applied cleanly without any conflicts. Please let me know if there’s a >>>> specific tree or integration point I should be checking against. >>> >>> I tried to apply it to the spi tree >>> >>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-6.19 >> Thanks for letting me know — I’ll rebase the patch on the SPI tree (for-6.19) and resend it. > > JFYI you can generally count on linux-next/master as a good base Thanks Konrad — noted! I’ll use linux-next/master as my base going forward. Thanks, Alam.
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.