On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 08:23:42AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote: >On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 at 21:08, Peng Fan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 11:06:04AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote: >> >On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 04:20:34PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 08:48:43AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote: >> >> >On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 11:52:05AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote: >> >> >> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] remoteproc: imx_rproc: Support i.MX95 >> >> >> > >> >> >> [...] >> >> >> > New warnings running 'make CHECK_DTBS=y for >> >> >> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/' for 20250710-imx95-rproc-1-v4-0- >> >> >> > [email protected]: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx95-tqma9596sa-mb-smarc-2.dtb: >> >> >> > scmi (arm,scmi): Unevaluated properties are not allowed >> >> >> > ('protocol@80', 'protocol@81', 'protocol@82', 'protocol@84' were >> >> >> > unexpected) >> >> >> >> >> >> Same as replied in v3. >> >> >> This is because [1] is still not picked, not because of my patchset. >> >> > >> >> >I won't move on this patchset until this is resolved. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Not understand why hold on this patchset. I suppose you may not >> >> understand what the error means. The warning is totally irrelevant >> >> to this patchset, there is no dependency. >> >> >> >> Others added a property to >> >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx95-tqma9596sa.dtsi >> >> &scmi_bbm { >> >> linux,code = <KEY_POWER>; >> >> }; >> >> But this "linux,code" property not landed(missed to be picked up) to DT >> >> binding. >> >> >> >> This patchset does not touch scmi_bbm. I could help address the warning >> >> in the other patch, but I do not see why "linux,code" under scmi_bbm node >> >> could block this patchset. >> >> >> >> Please help clarify if you still think to hold on this patchset. >> >> >> >> BTW: with [1] "remoteproc: imx_rproc: skip clock enable when M-core is >> >> managed by the SCU" >> >> merged in Ulf's tree, there is a minor conflict with patch 2. Please >> >> suggest >> >> what I should do with this patchset. >> >> >> > >> >I was afraid of that. The best way forward with this work is to wait for >> >the >> >"linux,code" property to be picked up by Sudeep. I suggest you make sure >> >that >> >he, or anyone else, picks it up for the next merge window. If that happens >> >> >> I respect you as maintainer, but there is no reason to block this patch >> because of "linux,code" property. It is totally irrelevant. >> >> Even if I help to resubmit that "linux,code" patch, there is no chance to >> land into 6.17-rc1, both Sudeep and Shawn sent their PR to arm-soc earlier >> before your comments. You could raise in V3.. which there was time left. >> > >I don't know what you mean by V3.
Patch version 3 got same CHECK_DTBS warning. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250626035602.GA13855@nxa18884-linux/ Anyway, it doesn't matter now. Thanks, Peng
