Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom-soc.yaml | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Extend the schema enforcing correct SoC-block naming to cover Milos
(compatibles already accepted by some maintainers for next release) and
Glymur (posted on mailing lists [1]) SoCs.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20250716152017.4070029-1-pankaj.patil@oss.qualcomm.com/ [1]
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
---
I asked for documenting the Milos name at v2 of Milos patchset... it did
not happen and patches are already being accepted.
Cc: Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@fairphone.com>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom-soc.yaml | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom-soc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom-soc.yaml
index a77d68dcad4e..27261039d56f 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom-soc.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom-soc.yaml
@@ -23,7 +23,9 @@ description: |
select:
properties:
compatible:
- pattern: "^qcom,.*(apq|ipq|mdm|msm|qcm|qcs|q[dr]u|sa|sar|sc|sd[amx]|sm|x1[ep])[0-9]+.*$"
+ oneOf:
+ - pattern: "^qcom,.*(apq|ipq|mdm|msm|qcm|qcs|q[dr]u|sa|sar|sc|sd[amx]|sm|x1[ep])[0-9]+.*$"
+ - pattern: "^qcom,.*(glymur|milos).*$"
required:
- compatible
@@ -34,6 +36,7 @@ properties:
- pattern: "^qcom,(apq|ipq|mdm|msm|qcm|qcs|q[dr]u|sa|sc|sd[amx]|sm|x1[ep])[0-9]+(pro)?-.*$"
- pattern: "^qcom,sar[0-9]+[a-z]?-.*$"
- pattern: "^qcom,(sa|sc)8[0-9]+[a-z][a-z]?-.*$"
+ - pattern: "^qcom,(glymur|milos)-.*$"
# Legacy namings - variations of existing patterns/compatibles are OK,
# but do not add completely new entries to these:
--
2.48.1
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 18:24:13 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > Extend the schema enforcing correct SoC-block naming to cover Milos > (compatibles already accepted by some maintainers for next release) and > Glymur (posted on mailing lists [1]) SoCs. > > Applied, thanks! [1/1] dt-bindings: arm: qcom-soc: Document new Milos and Glymur SoCs commit: 474aa14da0e160f2f3fb002b64b8363ae91f9590 Best regards, -- Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 18:24:13 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > Extend the schema enforcing correct SoC-block naming to cover Milos > (compatibles already accepted by some maintainers for next release) and > Glymur (posted on mailing lists [1]) SoCs. > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20250716152017.4070029-1-pankaj.patil@oss.qualcomm.com/ [1] > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > > --- > > I asked for documenting the Milos name at v2 of Milos patchset... it did > not happen and patches are already being accepted. > > Cc: Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@fairphone.com> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom-soc.yaml | 5 ++++- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > Acked-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org>
On Wed Jul 16, 2025 at 6:24 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > Extend the schema enforcing correct SoC-block naming to cover Milos > (compatibles already accepted by some maintainers for next release) and > Glymur (posted on mailing lists [1]) SoCs. > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20250716152017.4070029-1-pankaj.patil@oss.qualcomm.com/ [1] > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > > --- > > I asked for documenting the Milos name at v2 of Milos patchset... it did > not happen and patches are already being accepted. Sorry about that, I seem to have missed that. However I did not see any dt validation errors with my milos dts or dt_binding_check on the bindings, where are these patterns relevant, in case I should touch it again in the future? Regards Luca > > Cc: Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@fairphone.com> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom-soc.yaml | 5 ++++- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom-soc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom-soc.yaml > index a77d68dcad4e..27261039d56f 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom-soc.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom-soc.yaml > @@ -23,7 +23,9 @@ description: | > select: > properties: > compatible: > - pattern: "^qcom,.*(apq|ipq|mdm|msm|qcm|qcs|q[dr]u|sa|sar|sc|sd[amx]|sm|x1[ep])[0-9]+.*$" > + oneOf: > + - pattern: "^qcom,.*(apq|ipq|mdm|msm|qcm|qcs|q[dr]u|sa|sar|sc|sd[amx]|sm|x1[ep])[0-9]+.*$" > + - pattern: "^qcom,.*(glymur|milos).*$" > required: > - compatible > > @@ -34,6 +36,7 @@ properties: > - pattern: "^qcom,(apq|ipq|mdm|msm|qcm|qcs|q[dr]u|sa|sc|sd[amx]|sm|x1[ep])[0-9]+(pro)?-.*$" > - pattern: "^qcom,sar[0-9]+[a-z]?-.*$" > - pattern: "^qcom,(sa|sc)8[0-9]+[a-z][a-z]?-.*$" > + - pattern: "^qcom,(glymur|milos)-.*$" > > # Legacy namings - variations of existing patterns/compatibles are OK, > # but do not add completely new entries to these:
On 17/07/2025 08:27, Luca Weiss wrote: > On Wed Jul 16, 2025 at 6:24 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> Extend the schema enforcing correct SoC-block naming to cover Milos >> (compatibles already accepted by some maintainers for next release) and >> Glymur (posted on mailing lists [1]) SoCs. >> >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20250716152017.4070029-1-pankaj.patil@oss.qualcomm.com/ [1] >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> >> >> --- >> >> I asked for documenting the Milos name at v2 of Milos patchset... it did >> not happen and patches are already being accepted. > > Sorry about that, I seem to have missed that. > > However I did not see any dt validation errors with my milos dts or > dt_binding_check on the bindings, where are these patterns relevant, in > case I should touch it again in the future? There would not be any errors, because how these bindings are written - to ignore other, unknown names. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Thu Jul 17, 2025 at 8:33 AM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 17/07/2025 08:27, Luca Weiss wrote: >> On Wed Jul 16, 2025 at 6:24 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> Extend the schema enforcing correct SoC-block naming to cover Milos >>> (compatibles already accepted by some maintainers for next release) and >>> Glymur (posted on mailing lists [1]) SoCs. >>> >>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20250716152017.4070029-1-pankaj.patil@oss.qualcomm.com/ [1] >>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> >>> >>> --- >>> >>> I asked for documenting the Milos name at v2 of Milos patchset... it did >>> not happen and patches are already being accepted. >> >> Sorry about that, I seem to have missed that. >> >> However I did not see any dt validation errors with my milos dts or >> dt_binding_check on the bindings, where are these patterns relevant, in >> case I should touch it again in the future? > > There would not be any errors, because how these bindings are written - > to ignore other, unknown names. Ok clear, thanks for sending this patch! Regards Luca
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.