1. Patchew
  2. linux
  3. [PATCH 0/7] Describe the IMEM present in Qualcomm IPQ SoC's
  4. View patch

[PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: sram: qcom,imem: Document Qualcomm IPQ SoC's IMEM compatibles

Kathiravan Thirumoorthy posted 7 patches 3 months, 1 week ago
There is a newer version of this series
[PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: sram: qcom,imem: Document Qualcomm IPQ SoC's IMEM compatibles
Posted by Kathiravan Thirumoorthy 3 months, 1 week ago 
IMEM is present in the Qualcomm's IPQ SoCs as well. Document the same.

Signed-off-by: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@oss.qualcomm.com>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
index 72d35e30c439ccf4901d937f838fe7c7a81f33b1..48e2f332e0e9fc9fa4147fa12d9c6c70a77fafda 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
@@ -18,6 +18,12 @@ properties:
     items:
       - enum:
           - qcom,apq8064-imem
+          - qcom,ipq8074-imem
+          - qcom,ipq6018-imem
+          - qcom,ipq5018-imem
+          - qcom,ipq9574-imem
+          - qcom,ipq5332-imem
+          - qcom,ipq5424-imem
           - qcom,msm8226-imem
           - qcom,msm8974-imem
           - qcom,msm8976-imem

-- 
2.34.1
Re: [PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: sram: qcom,imem: Document Qualcomm IPQ SoC's IMEM compatibles
Posted by Krzysztof Kozlowski 3 months, 1 week ago 
On 02/07/2025 12:17, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
> IMEM is present in the Qualcomm's IPQ SoCs as well. Document the same.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@oss.qualcomm.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)


Where is the changelog? This is not a v1.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
> index 72d35e30c439ccf4901d937f838fe7c7a81f33b1..48e2f332e0e9fc9fa4147fa12d9c6c70a77fafda 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
> @@ -18,6 +18,12 @@ properties:
>      items:
>        - enum:
>            - qcom,apq8064-imem
> +          - qcom,ipq8074-imem
> +          - qcom,ipq6018-imem
> +          - qcom,ipq5018-imem
> +          - qcom,ipq9574-imem
> +          - qcom,ipq5332-imem
> +          - qcom,ipq5424-imem

Random order, no, follow existing style. This applies for every qcom
binding and you received such feedbacks in the past.


Best regards,
Krzysztof
Re: [PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: sram: qcom,imem: Document Qualcomm IPQ SoC's IMEM compatibles
Posted by Kathiravan Thirumoorthy 3 months, 1 week ago 
On 7/2/2025 3:49 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 02/07/2025 12:17, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
>> IMEM is present in the Qualcomm's IPQ SoCs as well. Document the same.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@oss.qualcomm.com>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml | 6 ++++++
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> Where is the changelog? This is not a v1.

This is the v1. The series[1] I pointed out describes only for the 
IPQ5424 SoC. Since I have added few more SoCs, thought v1 is the 
appropriate numbering.

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20250610-wdt_reset_reason-v5-0-2d2835160ab5@oss.qualcomm.com/

>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
>> index 72d35e30c439ccf4901d937f838fe7c7a81f33b1..48e2f332e0e9fc9fa4147fa12d9c6c70a77fafda 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
>> @@ -18,6 +18,12 @@ properties:
>>       items:
>>         - enum:
>>             - qcom,apq8064-imem
>> +          - qcom,ipq8074-imem
>> +          - qcom,ipq6018-imem
>> +          - qcom,ipq5018-imem
>> +          - qcom,ipq9574-imem
>> +          - qcom,ipq5332-imem
>> +          - qcom,ipq5424-imem
> Random order, no, follow existing style. This applies for every qcom
> binding and you received such feedbacks in the past.

Apologies — I arranged them based on the evolutionary order of SoCs. 
I’ll correct this in v2 and ensure it’s handled properly in the future.

>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
Re: [PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: sram: qcom,imem: Document Qualcomm IPQ SoC's IMEM compatibles
Posted by Krzysztof Kozlowski 3 months, 1 week ago 
On 02/07/2025 12:46, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
> 
> On 7/2/2025 3:49 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 02/07/2025 12:17, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
>>> IMEM is present in the Qualcomm's IPQ SoCs as well. Document the same.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>> ---
>>>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml | 6 ++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>> Where is the changelog? This is not a v1.
> 
> This is the v1. The series[1] I pointed out describes only for the 
> IPQ5424 SoC. Since I have added few more SoCs, thought v1 is the 
> appropriate numbering.
> 
> [1] 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20250610-wdt_reset_reason-v5-0-2d2835160ab5@oss.qualcomm.com/

But IPQ5424 is already there, so you reworked that patch.


> 
>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
>>> index 72d35e30c439ccf4901d937f838fe7c7a81f33b1..48e2f332e0e9fc9fa4147fa12d9c6c70a77fafda 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
>>> @@ -18,6 +18,12 @@ properties:
>>>       items:
>>>         - enum:
>>>             - qcom,apq8064-imem
>>> +          - qcom,ipq8074-imem
>>> +          - qcom,ipq6018-imem
>>> +          - qcom,ipq5018-imem
>>> +          - qcom,ipq9574-imem
>>> +          - qcom,ipq5332-imem
>>> +          - qcom,ipq5424-imem
>> Random order, no, follow existing style. This applies for every qcom
>> binding and you received such feedbacks in the past.
> 
> Apologies — I arranged them based on the evolutionary order of SoCs. 

Where is such ordering documented? How is it expressed in your internal
guideline for example?

Best regards,
Krzysztof
Re: [PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: sram: qcom,imem: Document Qualcomm IPQ SoC's IMEM compatibles
Posted by Kathiravan Thirumoorthy 3 months, 1 week ago 
On 7/2/2025 4:18 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 02/07/2025 12:46, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
>> On 7/2/2025 3:49 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 02/07/2025 12:17, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
>>>> IMEM is present in the Qualcomm's IPQ SoCs as well. Document the same.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml | 6 ++++++
>>>>    1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>> Where is the changelog? This is not a v1.
>> This is the v1. The series[1] I pointed out describes only for the
>> IPQ5424 SoC. Since I have added few more SoCs, thought v1 is the
>> appropriate numbering.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20250610-wdt_reset_reason-v5-0-2d2835160ab5@oss.qualcomm.com/
> But IPQ5424 is already there, so you reworked that patch.
Okay, so this should be V6?
>
>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
>>>> index 72d35e30c439ccf4901d937f838fe7c7a81f33b1..48e2f332e0e9fc9fa4147fa12d9c6c70a77fafda 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
>>>> @@ -18,6 +18,12 @@ properties:
>>>>        items:
>>>>          - enum:
>>>>              - qcom,apq8064-imem
>>>> +          - qcom,ipq8074-imem
>>>> +          - qcom,ipq6018-imem
>>>> +          - qcom,ipq5018-imem
>>>> +          - qcom,ipq9574-imem
>>>> +          - qcom,ipq5332-imem
>>>> +          - qcom,ipq5424-imem
>>> Random order, no, follow existing style. This applies for every qcom
>>> binding and you received such feedbacks in the past.
>> Apologies — I arranged them based on the evolutionary order of SoCs.
> Where is such ordering documented? How is it expressed in your internal
> guideline for example?
I made the mistake unintentionally and apologized for the same!
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
Re: [PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: sram: qcom,imem: Document Qualcomm IPQ SoC's IMEM compatibles
Posted by Kathiravan Thirumoorthy 3 months ago 
On 7/2/2025 4:29 PM, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
>
> On 7/2/2025 4:18 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 02/07/2025 12:46, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2025 3:49 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 02/07/2025 12:17, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
>>>>> IMEM is present in the Qualcomm's IPQ SoCs as well. Document the 
>>>>> same.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy 
>>>>> <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml | 6 ++++++
>>>>>    1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>> Where is the changelog? This is not a v1.
>>> This is the v1. The series[1] I pointed out describes only for the
>>> IPQ5424 SoC. Since I have added few more SoCs, thought v1 is the
>>> appropriate numbering.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20250610-wdt_reset_reason-v5-0-2d2835160ab5@oss.qualcomm.com/ 
>>>
>> But IPQ5424 is already there, so you reworked that patch.
> Okay, so this should be V6?


Let me drop the IPQ5424 support and send the V2. I hope that is fine.


>>
>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml 
>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
>>>>> index 
>>>>> 72d35e30c439ccf4901d937f838fe7c7a81f33b1..48e2f332e0e9fc9fa4147fa12d9c6c70a77fafda 
>>>>> 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
>>>>> @@ -18,6 +18,12 @@ properties:
>>>>>        items:
>>>>>          - enum:
>>>>>              - qcom,apq8064-imem
>>>>> +          - qcom,ipq8074-imem
>>>>> +          - qcom,ipq6018-imem
>>>>> +          - qcom,ipq5018-imem
>>>>> +          - qcom,ipq9574-imem
>>>>> +          - qcom,ipq5332-imem
>>>>> +          - qcom,ipq5424-imem
>>>> Random order, no, follow existing style. This applies for every qcom
>>>> binding and you received such feedbacks in the past.
>>> Apologies — I arranged them based on the evolutionary order of SoCs.
>> Where is such ordering documented? How is it expressed in your internal
>> guideline for example?
> I made the mistake unintentionally and apologized for the same!
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof

Patchew 2.1-devel-b67e4c2

© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.