The schema checking for expected naming patterns for SoC IP block nodes
was really incomplete and was checking only nodes with single
compatible.  Improve that because questions about expected compatibles
still appear, e.g. we have
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie-x1e80100.yaml with:

- qcom,pcie-x1e80100 (expected old legacy style)
- qcom,glymur-pcie (change to new style, ok fine, let's switch to new
  style... but...)

I am afraid that a new SoC will revert that back to old style, e.g.:
qcom,pcie-whatever-new-soc

Best regards,
Krzysztof

---
Krzysztof Kozlowski (3):
      dt-bindings: arm: qcoms-c: Include Eliza, Kaanapali and others in SoC names
      dt-bindings: arm: qcom-soc: Document more of existing legacy style compatibles
      dt-bindings: arm: qcom-soc: Validate nodes with fallbacks

 .../devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom-soc.yaml          | 173 ++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 137 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: 80dd246accce631c328ea43294e53b2b2dd2aa32
change-id: 20260519-dt-bindings-qcom-soc-naming-4f97dec54139

Best regards,
--  
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>

On 5/19/26 10:03 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> The schema checking for expected naming patterns for SoC IP block nodes
> was really incomplete and was checking only nodes with single
> compatible.  Improve that because questions about expected compatibles
> still appear, e.g. we have
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie-x1e80100.yaml with:
> 
> - qcom,pcie-x1e80100 (expected old legacy style)
> - qcom,glymur-pcie (change to new style, ok fine, let's switch to new
>   style... but...)
> 
> I am afraid that a new SoC will revert that back to old style, e.g.:
> qcom,pcie-whatever-new-soc
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 
> ---
> Krzysztof Kozlowski (3):
>       dt-bindings: arm: qcoms-c: Include Eliza, Kaanapali and others in SoC names
			      ^^^ typo

Konrad