QCS9075 is compatible Industrial-IOT grade variant of SA8775p SOC.
Unlike QCS9100, it doesn't have safety monitoring feature of
Safety-Island(SAIL) subsystem, which affects thermal management.

qcs9075-iq-9075-evk board is based on QCS9075 SOC.

Signed-off-by: Wasim Nazir <quic_wasimn@quicinc.com>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
index 56f78f0f3803..3b2c60af12cd 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
@@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ description: |
         qcs8550
         qcm2290
         qcm6490
+        qcs9075
         qcs9100
         qdu1000
         qrb2210
@@ -961,6 +962,12 @@ properties:
               - qcom,sa8775p-ride-r3
           - const: qcom,sa8775p

+      - items:
+          - enum:
+              - qcom,qcs9075-iq-9075-evk
+          - const: qcom,qcs9075
+          - const: qcom,sa8775p
+
       - items:
           - enum:
               - qcom,qcs9100-ride
--
2.49.0

On 21/05/2025 16:08, Wasim Nazir wrote:
> QCS9075 is compatible Industrial-IOT grade variant of SA8775p SOC.
> Unlike QCS9100, it doesn't have safety monitoring feature of
> Safety-Island(SAIL) subsystem, which affects thermal management.
> 
> qcs9075-iq-9075-evk board is based on QCS9075 SOC.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wasim Nazir <quic_wasimn@quicinc.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 

This was already acked twice by two DT maintainers. Apparently we need
the third one.

Sorry folks, but I will wait for v20 and then review. Otherwise we are
just doing pointless job here.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 04:20:53PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/05/2025 16:08, Wasim Nazir wrote:
> > QCS9075 is compatible Industrial-IOT grade variant of SA8775p SOC.
> > Unlike QCS9100, it doesn't have safety monitoring feature of
> > Safety-Island(SAIL) subsystem, which affects thermal management.
> > 
> > qcs9075-iq-9075-evk board is based on QCS9075 SOC.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Wasim Nazir <quic_wasimn@quicinc.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 7 +++++++
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > 
> 
> This was already acked twice by two DT maintainers. Apparently we need
> the third one.

The previous acknowledgment has been removed due to changes in the code.
Since, here I have removed the som compatible so though of getting it
reviewed again. Som compatible is removed to make it align with other
sa8775p & its derivative targets which we are trying to refactor along with
Ride changes in other series.

> 
> Sorry folks, but I will wait for v20 and then review. Otherwise we are
> just doing pointless job here.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Regards,
Wasim

On 21/05/2025 17:35, Wasim Nazir wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 04:20:53PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 21/05/2025 16:08, Wasim Nazir wrote:
>>> QCS9075 is compatible Industrial-IOT grade variant of SA8775p SOC.
>>> Unlike QCS9100, it doesn't have safety monitoring feature of
>>> Safety-Island(SAIL) subsystem, which affects thermal management.
>>>
>>> qcs9075-iq-9075-evk board is based on QCS9075 SOC.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wasim Nazir <quic_wasimn@quicinc.com>
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 7 +++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>
>>
>> This was already acked twice by two DT maintainers. Apparently we need
>> the third one.
> 
> The previous acknowledgment has been removed due to changes in the code.
> Since, here I have removed the som compatible so though of getting it
> reviewed again. Som compatible is removed to make it align with other
> sa8775p & its derivative targets which we are trying to refactor along with
> Ride changes in other series.

Nothing was explained in cover letter and dropping tags needs explicit
mentioning. Nothing explained about first tag being dropped, either!
Read really carefully submitting patches and your internal guideline
before sending patches.

But that was not about it. It was about us spending 1 or 5 minutes on
your patch every time, because you send something not ready which your
company decides to change thus we need to spend time again, and then you
change it again, which we need to spend time again... do you get the point?

That is not fair. Your marketing changes should not cause more effort on
us. And this is not the first time.

At least I do not agree on that. Anyway, I explained my point of view to
Bjorn and Konrad. I am not going to review this. Maybe you will be lucky
with the third DT maintainer.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 06:26:40PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/05/2025 17:35, Wasim Nazir wrote:
> > On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 04:20:53PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 21/05/2025 16:08, Wasim Nazir wrote:
> >>> QCS9075 is compatible Industrial-IOT grade variant of SA8775p SOC.
> >>> Unlike QCS9100, it doesn't have safety monitoring feature of
> >>> Safety-Island(SAIL) subsystem, which affects thermal management.
> >>>
> >>> qcs9075-iq-9075-evk board is based on QCS9075 SOC.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Wasim Nazir <quic_wasimn@quicinc.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 7 +++++++
> >>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>
> >> This was already acked twice by two DT maintainers. Apparently we need
> >> the third one.
> > 
> > The previous acknowledgment has been removed due to changes in the code.
> > Since, here I have removed the som compatible so though of getting it
> > reviewed again. Som compatible is removed to make it align with other
> > sa8775p & its derivative targets which we are trying to refactor along with
> > Ride changes in other series.
> 
> Nothing was explained in cover letter and dropping tags needs explicit
> mentioning. Nothing explained about first tag being dropped, either!
> Read really carefully submitting patches and your internal guideline
> before sending patches.

I'm sorry about that; it wasn't intentional. I'll make sure to take care
of it next time. I do try to mention changes in the changelog, but I
understand now that it's not sufficient.

> 
> But that was not about it. It was about us spending 1 or 5 minutes on
> your patch every time, because you send something not ready which your
> company decides to change thus we need to spend time again, and then you
> change it again, which we need to spend time again... do you get the point?
> 

I have made the code changes to align with our discussion in the other
series [1] of changes for Ride. Let me know if we need further
discussion on this to conclude on DT structure for sa8775p & IQ9 targets.

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/aCdAuTS4pg7arxwC@hu-wasimn-hyd.qualcomm.com/

> That is not fair. Your marketing changes should not cause more effort on
> us. And this is not the first time.

I truly appreciate all your efforts. I understand there have been
mistakes on our end, but we are learning a lot from this process. We are
noting valuable points to make our internal processes more efficient and
reduce multiple iterations.

> 
> At least I do not agree on that. Anyway, I explained my point of view to
> Bjorn and Konrad. I am not going to review this. Maybe you will be lucky
> with the third DT maintainer.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Regards,
Wasim