On 05/01/2026 06:56, Padhi, Beleswar wrote: > > On 1/2/2026 6:00 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 10:21:00PM +0530, Beleswar Padhi wrote: >>> Some of the TI K3 family of SoCs have a HSM (High Security Module) M4F >>> core in the Wakeup Voltage Domain which could be used to run secure >>> services like Authentication. Add the device tree bindings document for >>> this HSM M4F core. >>> >>> The added example illustrates the DT node for the HSM core present on K3 >>> J722S SoC. >> A nit, subject: drop second/last, redundant "bindings for". The >> "dt-bindings" prefix is already stating that these are bindings. >> See also: >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.17-rc3/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst#L18 >> >>> Signed-off-by: Beleswar Padhi <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-hsm-rproc.yaml | 79 +++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-hsm-rproc.yaml >>> >>> diff --git >>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-hsm-rproc.yaml >>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-hsm-rproc.yaml >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 0000000000000..f61e4046843af >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-hsm-rproc.yaml >> Filename must match the compatible. Are you sure you are following >> internal TI guidelines? Did you read them? > > > Will address all comments in v2. Most of these issues exist with other > upstreamed TI dt-bindings as well, will send out a separate cleanup > series for those too.
This was not my question. Are you following carefully internal TI guidelines to avoid common mistakes? Best regards, Krzysztof
