Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
Add compatible for Qualcomm's glymur IMEM.
Signed-off-by: Ananthu C V <ananthu.cv@oss.qualcomm.com>
---
V1->V2 alphabetically sorted the placement of glymur in the list
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
index 6a627c57ae2f..5a4a2868388e 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ properties:
items:
- enum:
- qcom,apq8064-imem
+ - qcom,glymur-imem
- qcom,ipq5424-imem
- qcom,msm8226-imem
- qcom,msm8974-imem
--
2.43.0
On 1/23/2026 3:46 PM, Ananthu C V wrote: > Add compatible for Qualcomm's glymur IMEM. Shouldn't we use "mmio-sram" binding? Please note, starting from "kaanapali", IMEM is described as "mmio-sram". If we need to stick with this binding, please describe the same on why so? > > Signed-off-by: Ananthu C V <ananthu.cv@oss.qualcomm.com> > --- > V1->V2 alphabetically sorted the placement of glymur in the list > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml > index 6a627c57ae2f..5a4a2868388e 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ properties: > items: > - enum: > - qcom,apq8064-imem > + - qcom,glymur-imem > - qcom,ipq5424-imem > - qcom,msm8226-imem > - qcom,msm8974-imem
On Sat, Jan 24, 2026 at 09:57:18PM +0530, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote: > > On 1/23/2026 3:46 PM, Ananthu C V wrote: > > Add compatible for Qualcomm's glymur IMEM. > > Shouldn't we use "mmio-sram" binding? Please note, starting from > "kaanapali", IMEM is described as "mmio-sram". If we need to stick with this > binding, please describe the same on why so? > Great, thanks for this review. Initially Krzysztof also pointed out in v1 that the placement is wrong (thanks Krzysztof). But I couldn't find internal docs regarding this and since I missed out on sorting it, I thought that was the wrong placement. I see that the kaanapali imem binding thread has sufficient info on this, so I'll test with mmio-sram and make a revision if that works.
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.