Signed-off-by: Alexander Koskovich <akoskovich@pm.me>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
index d48c625d3fc4..81677c0c5d47 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
@@ -1010,6 +1010,7 @@ properties:
 
       - items:
           - enum:
+              - asus,obiwan
               - qcom,qrb5165-rb5
               - qcom,sm8250-hdk
               - qcom,sm8250-mtp

-- 
2.53.0

On Sun, Mar 08, 2026 at 08:40:33PM +0000, Alexander Koskovich wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Koskovich <akoskovich@pm.me>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 

Please run scripts/checkpatch.pl on the patches and fix reported
warnings. After that, run also 'scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict' on the
patches and (probably) fix more warnings. Some warnings can be ignored,
especially from --strict run, but the code here looks like it needs a
fix. Feel free to get in touch if the warning is not clear.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

On Monday, March 9th, 2026 at 3:59 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:

> Please run scripts/checkpatch.pl on the patches and fix reported
> warnings. After that, run also 'scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict' on the
> patches and (probably) fix more warnings. Some warnings can be ignored,
> especially from --strict run, but the code here looks like it needs a
> fix. Feel free to get in touch if the warning is not clear.

Ran checkpatch on v2, got a few warnings that seemed like they could be ignored
given context but let me know if they need to be addressed:

Asked for MAINTAINERS to be updated, but from what I can see there is no other
sm8250 board that has a maintainer specifically listed.

Complained about undocumented tianma,ta066vvhm03 binding, but have that
specified as a dependency in the cover letter so ignored it.

Complained about undocumented pci17cb vendor prefix, but this doesn't seem to
be a vendor name so doesn't seem like warning applies? Also already in
sm8250-xiaomi-elish-common.dtsi.

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 
> 

Thanks,
Alex

On 10/03/2026 04:04, Alexander Koskovich wrote:
> On Monday, March 9th, 2026 at 3:59 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
>> Please run scripts/checkpatch.pl on the patches and fix reported
>> warnings. After that, run also 'scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict' on the
>> patches and (probably) fix more warnings. Some warnings can be ignored,
>> especially from --strict run, but the code here looks like it needs a
>> fix. Feel free to get in touch if the warning is not clear.
> 
> Ran checkpatch on v2, got a few warnings that seemed like they could be ignored
> given context but let me know if they need to be addressed:
> 
> Asked for MAINTAINERS to be updated, but from what I can see there is no other
> sm8250 board that has a maintainer specifically listed.
> 
> Complained about undocumented tianma,ta066vvhm03 binding, but have that
> specified as a dependency in the cover letter so ignored it.

This one. The way you wrote your cover letter does not really makes it
easy to find it. Especially that it's not even true - DTS cannot depend
on drivers.

Clearly document dependencies and new bindings used by DTS. If you are
going to mix these, your patchset will wait and will not be picked up.

Best regards,
Krzysztof