Based on the discussion in the linux-arm-msm list, it is not
appropriate to define the IMEM (On-Chip SRAM) as syscon or MFD.

So drop the compatible from qcom,imem.yaml and add it in sram.yaml
binding.

Signed-off-by: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@oss.qualcomm.com>
---
Changes in v6:
	* New patch
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml | 1 -
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml      | 1 +
 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
index 6a627c57ae2fecdbb81cae710f6fb5e48156b1f5..72d35e30c439ccf4901d937f838fe7c7a81f33b1 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
@@ -18,7 +18,6 @@ properties:
     items:
       - enum:
           - qcom,apq8064-imem
-          - qcom,ipq5424-imem
           - qcom,msm8226-imem
           - qcom,msm8974-imem
           - qcom,msm8976-imem
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml
index c451140962c86f4e8f98437a2830cb2c6a697e63..7bd24305a8c7d98dc6efad81e72dc8d86d8b212b 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ properties:
         - nvidia,tegra186-sysram
         - nvidia,tegra194-sysram
         - nvidia,tegra234-sysram
+        - qcom,ipq5424-imem
         - qcom,kaanapali-imem
         - qcom,rpm-msg-ram
         - rockchip,rk3288-pmu-sram

-- 
2.34.1

On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 04:14:30PM +0530, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
> Based on the discussion in the linux-arm-msm list, it is not
> appropriate to define the IMEM (On-Chip SRAM) as syscon or MFD.

3rd party discussions without any references are not valid reason. You

Best regards,
Krzysztof

On 2/5/2026 2:48 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 04:14:30PM +0530, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
>> Based on the discussion in the linux-arm-msm list, it is not
>> appropriate to define the IMEM (On-Chip SRAM) as syscon or MFD.
> 3rd party discussions without any references are not valid reason. You


Here is the reference - 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/e4c5ecc3-fd97-4b13-a057-bb1a3b7f9207@kernel.org. 
Let me include this in next revision.


>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>

On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 04:14:30PM +0530, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
> Based on the discussion in the linux-arm-msm list, it is not
> appropriate to define the IMEM (On-Chip SRAM) as syscon or MFD.
> 
> So drop the compatible from qcom,imem.yaml and add it in sram.yaml
> binding.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@oss.qualcomm.com>
> ---
> Changes in v6:
> 	* New patch
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml | 1 -
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml      | 1 +
>  2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml
> index c451140962c86f4e8f98437a2830cb2c6a697e63..7bd24305a8c7d98dc6efad81e72dc8d86d8b212b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml
> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ properties:
>          - nvidia,tegra186-sysram
>          - nvidia,tegra194-sysram
>          - nvidia,tegra234-sysram
> +        - qcom,ipq5424-imem

Bjorn, Konrad, I sadly don't remember the outcome of our discussion. Do
we need to specify that this SRAM region is Qualcomm something IMEM or
do we not?

>          - qcom,kaanapali-imem
>          - qcom,rpm-msg-ram
>          - rockchip,rk3288-pmu-sram
> 
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

On 1/31/26 9:20 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 04:14:30PM +0530, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
>> Based on the discussion in the linux-arm-msm list, it is not
>> appropriate to define the IMEM (On-Chip SRAM) as syscon or MFD.
>>
>> So drop the compatible from qcom,imem.yaml and add it in sram.yaml
>> binding.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@oss.qualcomm.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in v6:
>> 	* New patch
>> ---
>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml | 1 -
>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml      | 1 +
>>  2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml
>> index c451140962c86f4e8f98437a2830cb2c6a697e63..7bd24305a8c7d98dc6efad81e72dc8d86d8b212b 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml
>> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ properties:
>>          - nvidia,tegra186-sysram
>>          - nvidia,tegra194-sysram
>>          - nvidia,tegra234-sysram
>> +        - qcom,ipq5424-imem
> 
> Bjorn, Konrad, I sadly don't remember the outcome of our discussion. Do
> we need to specify that this SRAM region is Qualcomm something IMEM or
> do we not?

Do you mean BOOT_IMEM vs SYSTEM_IMEM?

I don't think we have a usecase for the former in Linux and I'm not
sure we ever will (plus we already refer to SYSTEM_IMEM as "imem" in
a lot, lot of places)

Konrad