Kaanapali PMIC glink platforms support features exposed by the SM8550
PMIC glink interface. Document the Kaanpali compatible string to have
fallback on SM8550.
Glymur PMIC glink platforms support features exposed by SM8550,
X1E80100 and Kaanapali PMIC glink interfaces. Document the Glymur
compatible string to have fallbacks on SM8550, X1E80100 and Kaanapali.
Signed-off-by: Anjelique Melendez <anjelique.melendez@oss.qualcomm.com>
---
.../devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml
index 7085bf88afab..302b338e7012 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml
@@ -37,12 +37,20 @@ properties:
- const: qcom,pmic-glink
- items:
- enum:
+ - qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink
- qcom,milos-pmic-glink
- qcom,sm8650-pmic-glink
- qcom,sm8750-pmic-glink
- qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink
- const: qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink
- const: qcom,pmic-glink
+ - items:
+ - enum:
+ - qcom,glymur-pmic-glink
+ - const: qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink
+ - const: qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink
+ - const: qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink
+ - const: qcom,pmic-glink
'#address-cells':
const: 1
--
2.34.1On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 09:56:54PM -0800, Anjelique Melendez wrote:
> Kaanapali PMIC glink platforms support features exposed by the SM8550
> PMIC glink interface. Document the Kaanpali compatible string to have
> fallback on SM8550.
>
> Glymur PMIC glink platforms support features exposed by SM8550,
> X1E80100 and Kaanapali PMIC glink interfaces. Document the Glymur
> compatible string to have fallbacks on SM8550, X1E80100 and Kaanapali.
But while the Glymur PMIC GLINK interface does present (almost) the same
features as SM8550 and/or Kaanapali, I don't see them as compatible. The
protocol is different and if nothing else, as shown by patch 2, the life
cycle is different.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anjelique Melendez <anjelique.melendez@oss.qualcomm.com>
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml
> index 7085bf88afab..302b338e7012 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml
> @@ -37,12 +37,20 @@ properties:
> - const: qcom,pmic-glink
> - items:
> - enum:
> + - qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink
> - qcom,milos-pmic-glink
> - qcom,sm8650-pmic-glink
> - qcom,sm8750-pmic-glink
> - qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink
> - const: qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink
> - const: qcom,pmic-glink
> + - items:
> + - enum:
> + - qcom,glymur-pmic-glink
> + - const: qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink
> + - const: qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink
> + - const: qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink
> + - const: qcom,pmic-glink
So this would then result in:
compatible = "qcom,glymur-pmic-glink", "qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink", "qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink", "qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink", "qcom,pmic-glink";
Which tells the operating system that it should use the implementation
for the Glymur interface, and if that isn't known the implementation for
the Kaanapali interface, and if that isn't known the implementation for
the Hamoa interface, and if that isn't known the implementation for the
SM8550 interface, and if that isn't known the generic "pmic glink"
interface.
So, in an operating system that doesn't know how to interact with
Glymur, you have stated that Kaanapali is a good second choice. This
does accurately capture the soccp behavior, but looking at the
individual functions we're not compatible with Kaanapali.
If we're in an operating system that doesn't know about Glymur or
Kaanapali, you're stating that the Hamoa implementation is good. I think
this is accurate for several of the features, but the OS will forever
wait for the services to show up.
Etc...
As such, I think the appropriate way to express this is to add two new
"top-level" options:
- items:
- const: qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink
- const: qcom,pmic-glink
- items:
- const: qcom,glymur-pmic-glink
- const: qcom,pmic-glink
This establishes them as new "base compatibles", which can be used for
derived platforms, by just adding the relevant enums. The alternative is
to add them to the first item (enum + qcom,pmic-glink) and then as soon
as we have derivatives we split it out in enum + kaanapali +
qcom,pmic-glink or enum + glymur + qcom,pmic-glink. But I think this
would be cleaner.
Regards,
Bjorn
>
> '#address-cells':
> const: 1
> --
> 2.34.1
>
On 12/22/2025 11:42 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 09:56:54PM -0800, Anjelique Melendez wrote:
>> Kaanapali PMIC glink platforms support features exposed by the
>> SM8550 PMIC glink interface. Document the Kaanpali compatible
>> string to have fallback on SM8550.
>>
>> Glymur PMIC glink platforms support features exposed by SM8550,
>> X1E80100 and Kaanapali PMIC glink interfaces. Document the Glymur
>> compatible string to have fallbacks on SM8550, X1E80100 and
>> Kaanapali.
>
> But while the Glymur PMIC GLINK interface does present (almost) the
> same features as SM8550 and/or Kaanapali, I don't see them as
> compatible. The protocol is different and if nothing else, as shown
> by patch 2, the life cycle is different.
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Anjelique Melendez
>> <anjelique.melendez@oss.qualcomm.com> --- .../devicetree/bindings/
>> soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8
>> insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-
>> glink.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-
>> glink.yaml index 7085bf88afab..302b338e7012 100644 --- a/
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml ++
>> + b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-
>> glink.yaml @@ -37,12 +37,20 @@ properties: - const: qcom,pmic-
>> glink - items: - enum: + - qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink
>> - qcom,milos-pmic-glink - qcom,sm8650-pmic-glink - qcom,sm8750-
>> pmic-glink - qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink - const: qcom,sm8550-pmic-
>> glink - const: qcom,pmic-glink + - items: + - enum:
>> + - qcom,glymur-pmic-glink + - const:
>> qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink + - const: qcom,x1e80100-pmic-
>> glink + - const: qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink + -
>> const: qcom,pmic-glink
>
> So this would then result in:
>
> compatible = "qcom,glymur-pmic-glink", "qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink",
> "qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink", "qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink", "qcom,pmic-
> glink";
>
> Which tells the operating system that it should use the
> implementation for the Glymur interface, and if that isn't known the
> implementation for the Kaanapali interface, and if that isn't known
> the implementation for the Hamoa interface, and if that isn't known
> the implementation for the SM8550 interface, and if that isn't known
> the generic "pmic glink" interface.
>
> So, in an operating system that doesn't know how to interact with
> Glymur, you have stated that Kaanapali is a good second choice. This
> does accurately capture the soccp behavior, but looking at the
> individual functions we're not compatible with Kaanapali.
>
> If we're in an operating system that doesn't know about Glymur or
> Kaanapali, you're stating that the Hamoa implementation is good. I
> think this is accurate for several of the features, but the OS will
> forever wait for the services to show up.
>
> Etc...
>
> As such, I think the appropriate way to express this is to add two
> new "top-level" options:
>
> - items: - const: qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink - const: qcom,pmic-glink
> - items: - const: qcom,glymur-pmic-glink - const: qcom,pmic-glink
>
> This establishes them as new "base compatibles", which can be used
> for derived platforms, by just adding the relevant enums. The
> alternative is to add them to the first item (enum + qcom,pmic-
> glink) and then as soon as we have derivatives we split it out in
> enum + kaanapali + qcom,pmic-glink or enum + glymur + qcom,pmic-
> glink. But I think this would be cleaner.
>
> Regards, Bjorn
>
I agree that it would make more sense to decouple Kaanapali and Glymur
however I do have a few follow up questions on how that should look in
the pmic-glink and glink aux drivers.
1. In v2 we had tried to define Kaanapali and Glymur separately but in
the pmic-glink driver they were sharing the same data since they both
have charger FW running on SOCCP instead of ADSP. Krzysztof had
expressed here,
https://lore.kernel.org/all/01f419cc-3236-48b9-bd51-e7db07d1e6fe@kernel.org/,
that having separate Glymur and Kaanapali compatible strings but then
having them both point to the pmic_glink_kaanapali_data basically infers
that Kaanapali and Glymur were compatible. There were other issues with
that binding so I'm not sure if that comment would still stand in this
case if we create new Glymur and Kaanapali base compatibles. If it does
would it make more sense if the pmic_glink_data was instead named so
that it relates to the system that the chg fw is running on?
i.e
{ .compatible="qcom,glymur-pmic-glink",.data=&pmic_glink_soccp_data},
{ .compatible="qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink",.data=&pmic_glink_soccp_data},
{ .compatible = "qcom,pmic-glink", .data = &pmic_glink_adsp_data },
2. With Glymur and Kaanapali separated we would also need to update the
UCSI and Battmngr drivers compatible string lists.
In USCI driver we would need to do:
+ { .compatible ="qcom,glymur-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sm8450, },
+ { .compatible = "qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink",.data = &quirk_sm8450, },
{ .compatible = "qcom,qcm6490-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sc8280xp, },
{ .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sc8180x, },
{ .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-pmic-glink", .data= &quirk_sc8280xp, },
{ .compatible = "qcom,sm8350-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sc8180x, },
{ .compatible = "qcom,sm8450-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sm8450, },
{ .compatible = "qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sm8450, },
and in battmgr driver we would need to do:
+ { .compatible = "qcom,glymur-pmic-glink", .data = (void *) X1E80100 },
+ { .compatible = "qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink", .data = (void *)SM8550 },
{ .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-pmic-glink", .data = (void *)SC8280XP },
{ .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-pmic-glink", .data = (void
*)SC8280XP},
{ .compatible = "qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink", .data = (void *)SM8550 },
{ .compatible = "qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink", .data = (void *)X1E80100},
I'm wondering if instead of making changes to both the UCSI and battmngr
drivers, does it make sense to just add a compatible for X1E to UCSI? I
briefly discussed this approach in this response:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/481ec137-87cf-4448-99e9-4a1477f4854d@oss.qualcomm.com/.
With this we could instead define Kaanapali as a fallback to sm8550 and
Glymur as a fallback to the x1e
Binding would instead look something like this
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ properties:
- qcom,sm8350-pmic-glink
- qcom,sm8450-pmic-glink
- qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink
+ - qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink
- const: qcom,pmic-glink
- items:
- enum:
@@ -38,12 +38,18 @@ properties:
- const: qcom,pmic-glink
- items:
- enum:
+ - qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink
- qcom,milos-pmic-glink
- qcom,sm8650-pmic-glink
- qcom,sm8750-pmic-glink
- qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink
- const: qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink
- const: qcom,pmic-glink
+ - items:
+ - enum:
+ - qcom,glymur-pmic-glink
+ - const: qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink
+ - const: qcom,pmic-glink
with the UCSI driver change just being:
{ .compatible = "qcom,qcm6490-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sc8280xp, },
{ .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sc8180x, },
{ .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-pmic-glink", .data= &quirk_sc8280xp, },
{ .compatible = "qcom,sm8350-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sc8180x, },
{ .compatible = "qcom,sm8450-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sm8450, },
{ .compatible = "qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sm8450, },
+ { .compatible = "qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sm8450, },
Thanks,
Anjelique
On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 02:36:49PM -0800, Anjelique Melendez wrote:
>
>
> On 12/22/2025 11:42 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 09:56:54PM -0800, Anjelique Melendez wrote:
> > > Kaanapali PMIC glink platforms support features exposed by the
> > > SM8550 PMIC glink interface. Document the Kaanpali compatible
> > > string to have fallback on SM8550.
> > >
> > > Glymur PMIC glink platforms support features exposed by SM8550,
> > > X1E80100 and Kaanapali PMIC glink interfaces. Document the Glymur
> > > compatible string to have fallbacks on SM8550, X1E80100 and
> > > Kaanapali.
> >
> > But while the Glymur PMIC GLINK interface does present (almost) the
> > same features as SM8550 and/or Kaanapali, I don't see them as
> > compatible. The protocol is different and if nothing else, as shown
> > by patch 2, the life cycle is different.
> >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Anjelique Melendez
> > > <anjelique.melendez@oss.qualcomm.com> --- .../devicetree/bindings/
> > > soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8
> > > insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-
> > > glink.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-
> > > glink.yaml index 7085bf88afab..302b338e7012 100644 --- a/
> > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml ++
> > > + b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-
> > > glink.yaml @@ -37,12 +37,20 @@ properties: - const: qcom,pmic-
> > > glink - items: - enum: + - qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink -
> > > qcom,milos-pmic-glink - qcom,sm8650-pmic-glink - qcom,sm8750-
> > > pmic-glink - qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink - const: qcom,sm8550-pmic-
> > > glink - const: qcom,pmic-glink + - items: + - enum: +
> > > - qcom,glymur-pmic-glink + - const:
> > > qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink + - const: qcom,x1e80100-pmic-
> > > glink + - const: qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink + -
> > > const: qcom,pmic-glink
> >
> > So this would then result in:
> >
> > compatible = "qcom,glymur-pmic-glink", "qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink",
> > "qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink", "qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink", "qcom,pmic-
> > glink";
> >
> > Which tells the operating system that it should use the
> > implementation for the Glymur interface, and if that isn't known the
> > implementation for the Kaanapali interface, and if that isn't known
> > the implementation for the Hamoa interface, and if that isn't known
> > the implementation for the SM8550 interface, and if that isn't known
> > the generic "pmic glink" interface.
> >
> > So, in an operating system that doesn't know how to interact with
> > Glymur, you have stated that Kaanapali is a good second choice. This
> > does accurately capture the soccp behavior, but looking at the
> > individual functions we're not compatible with Kaanapali.
> >
> > If we're in an operating system that doesn't know about Glymur or
> > Kaanapali, you're stating that the Hamoa implementation is good. I
> > think this is accurate for several of the features, but the OS will
> > forever wait for the services to show up.
> >
> > Etc...
> >
> > As such, I think the appropriate way to express this is to add two
> > new "top-level" options:
> >
> > - items: - const: qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink - const: qcom,pmic-glink -
> > items: - const: qcom,glymur-pmic-glink - const: qcom,pmic-glink
> >
> > This establishes them as new "base compatibles", which can be used
> > for derived platforms, by just adding the relevant enums. The
> > alternative is to add them to the first item (enum + qcom,pmic-
> > glink) and then as soon as we have derivatives we split it out in
> > enum + kaanapali + qcom,pmic-glink or enum + glymur + qcom,pmic-
> > glink. But I think this would be cleaner.
> >
> > Regards, Bjorn
> >
>
> I agree that it would make more sense to decouple Kaanapali and Glymur
> however I do have a few follow up questions on how that should look in the
> pmic-glink and glink aux drivers.
>
> 1. In v2 we had tried to define Kaanapali and Glymur separately but in the
> pmic-glink driver they were sharing the same data since they both have
> charger FW running on SOCCP instead of ADSP. Krzysztof had expressed here,
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/01f419cc-3236-48b9-bd51-e7db07d1e6fe@kernel.org/,
> that having separate Glymur and Kaanapali compatible strings but then having
> them both point to the pmic_glink_kaanapali_data basically infers that
> Kaanapali and Glymur were compatible.
My main take away from that email thread is Krzysztof is trying to
understand the situation, and isn't provided the explanation about how
the various firmware interfaces relates to each other - and hence what
should be marked as "compatible" with what.
> There were other issues with that
> binding so I'm not sure if that comment would still stand in this case if we
> create new Glymur and Kaanapali base compatibles. If it does would it make
> more sense if the pmic_glink_data was instead named so that it relates to
> the system that the chg fw is running on?
> i.e
> { .compatible="qcom,glymur-pmic-glink",.data=&pmic_glink_soccp_data},
> { .compatible="qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink",.data=&pmic_glink_soccp_data},
> { .compatible = "qcom,pmic-glink", .data = &pmic_glink_adsp_data },
>
Absolutely, the fact that the variable is called
"pmic_glink_sm8450_client_mask" doesn't help anyone to understand that
it means "yes we have battery, altmode, and ucsi".
In fact, those bit fields was introduced when we didn't support all
three clients across all targets. As the code looks today, that whole
mechanism should be thrown out (or we should introduce some system that
exercises it).
>
> 2. With Glymur and Kaanapali separated we would also need to update the UCSI
> and Battmngr drivers compatible string lists.
>
> In USCI driver we would need to do:
>
> + { .compatible ="qcom,glymur-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sm8450, },
> + { .compatible = "qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink",.data = &quirk_sm8450, },
Looks reasonable, but as you suggest below, better to add an Hamoa
compatible and rely on the fallback to that. This will also allow us to
stop claiming that Hamoa is compatible with SM8550 - just because they
have the same USCI quirks...
> { .compatible = "qcom,qcm6490-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sc8280xp, },
> { .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sc8180x, },
> { .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-pmic-glink", .data= &quirk_sc8280xp, },
> { .compatible = "qcom,sm8350-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sc8180x, },
> { .compatible = "qcom,sm8450-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sm8450, },
> { .compatible = "qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sm8450, },
>
>
> and in battmgr driver we would need to do:
>
> + { .compatible = "qcom,glymur-pmic-glink", .data = (void *) X1E80100 },
> + { .compatible = "qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink", .data = (void *)SM8550 },
Looks good as well, and shows my point of why Glymur and Hamoa isn't
"compatible" with SM8550.
> { .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-pmic-glink", .data = (void *)SC8280XP },
> { .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-pmic-glink", .data = (void *)SC8280XP},
> { .compatible = "qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink", .data = (void *)SM8550 },
> { .compatible = "qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink", .data = (void *)X1E80100},
>
>
> I'm wondering if instead of making changes to both the UCSI and battmngr
> drivers, does it make sense to just add a compatible for X1E to UCSI? I
> briefly discussed this approach in this response: https://lore.kernel.org/all/481ec137-87cf-4448-99e9-4a1477f4854d@oss.qualcomm.com/.
> With this we could instead define Kaanapali as a fallback to sm8550 and
> Glymur as a fallback to the x1e
>
Yes, this would be better.
> Binding would instead look something like this
>
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml
> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ properties:
> - qcom,sm8350-pmic-glink
> - qcom,sm8450-pmic-glink
> - qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink
> + - qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink
> - const: qcom,pmic-glink
> - items:
> - enum:
> @@ -38,12 +38,18 @@ properties:
> - const: qcom,pmic-glink
> - items:
> - enum:
> + - qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink
> - qcom,milos-pmic-glink
> - qcom,sm8650-pmic-glink
> - qcom,sm8750-pmic-glink
> - qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink
> - const: qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink
> - const: qcom,pmic-glink
> + - items:
> + - enum:
> + - qcom,glymur-pmic-glink
> + - const: qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink
> + - const: qcom,pmic-glink
This matches my expectations (all three hunks).
PS. We should remove qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink from the grouping with
qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink, but let's do that later.
>
> with the UCSI driver change just being:
> { .compatible = "qcom,qcm6490-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sc8280xp, },
> { .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sc8180x, },
> { .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-pmic-glink", .data= &quirk_sc8280xp, },
> { .compatible = "qcom,sm8350-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sc8180x, },
> { .compatible = "qcom,sm8450-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sm8450, },
> { .compatible = "qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sm8450, },
> + { .compatible = "qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink", .data = &quirk_sm8450, },
Yes, that looks good and if we inherited the quirks from Hamoa, this
looks correct to me.
Regards,
Bjorn
>
>
> Thanks,
> Anjelique
On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 09:56:54PM -0800, Anjelique Melendez wrote: > Kaanapali PMIC glink platforms support features exposed by the SM8550 > PMIC glink interface. Document the Kaanpali compatible string to have > fallback on SM8550. > > Glymur PMIC glink platforms support features exposed by SM8550, We will be repeating the same discussion, probably, because above does not help me to understand at all. How Glymur can be compatible with Kaanapali, which is both: compatible with X1E and not compatible with X1E > X1E80100 and Kaanapali PMIC glink interfaces. Document the Glymur > compatible string to have fallbacks on SM8550, X1E80100 and Kaanapali. Half of your commit msg - this sentence and last sentence from previous paragraph - is redundant because you repeat what is in the diff. It's obvious. Imagine please that we can read the diff. But the weirdness of compatibility is not explained at all. > > Signed-off-by: Anjelique Melendez <anjelique.melendez@oss.qualcomm.com> > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml > index 7085bf88afab..302b338e7012 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml > @@ -37,12 +37,20 @@ properties: > - const: qcom,pmic-glink > - items: > - enum: > + - qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink > - qcom,milos-pmic-glink > - qcom,sm8650-pmic-glink > - qcom,sm8750-pmic-glink > - qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink This means they are not compatible... > - const: qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink > - const: qcom,pmic-glink > + - items: > + - enum: > + - qcom,glymur-pmic-glink > + - const: qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink > + - const: qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink This suggests they are actually compatible. > + - const: qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink > + - const: qcom,pmic-glink > > '#address-cells': > const: 1 > -- > 2.34.1 >
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.