On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 09:39:54AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 08:40:06AM +0530, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: > > From: Manikanta Mylavarapu <[email protected]> > > > > Add new binding document for hexagon based WCSS secure PIL remoteproc. > > IPQ5018, IPQ5332 and IPQ9574 follow secure PIL remoteproc. > > > > Signed-off-by: Manikanta Mylavarapu <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Gokul Sriram Palanisamy <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: George Moussalem <[email protected]> > > [ Dropped ipq5424 support ] > > Signed-off-by: Varadarajan Narayanan > > <[email protected]> > > --- > > v8: Dropped Krzysztof's 'Reviewed-by' as the bindings file has changed > > significantly > > Drop ipq5424 support > > Update example to ipq9574 instead of ipq5424 > > Change 'mboxes' description > > I do not see any "significant" differences in the binding. You ONLY > dropped one compatible (no problem, why would we care?) and renamed one > description in mboxs. No other changes, nothing, so I do not understand > what was the significant difference here. > > Dropping reviews at v8 is really unexpected and to me it feels like you > rewrite everything, which should not happen at v8.
Sorry about this. Was not sure if the changes introduced in v6 (https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/#t) had your approval. Hence wanted to seek your approval once again. > > --- > > .../remoteproc/qcom,wcss-sec-pil.yaml | 172 ++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 172 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,wcss-sec-pil.yaml > > > > diff --git > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,wcss-sec-pil.yaml > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,wcss-sec-pil.yaml > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..0fe04e0a4ca5 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,wcss-sec-pil.yaml > > > Well, since you ask for re-review and I really cannot find the > difference, then let's start nitpicking from scratch: > > Please use one of the compatibles, e.g. the oldest device, as filename. > > > @@ -0,0 +1,172 @@ > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > > +%YAML 1.2 > > +--- > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/remoteproc/qcom,wcss-sec-pil.yaml# > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > + > > +title: Qualcomm WCSS Secure Peripheral Image Loader > > + > > +maintainers: > > + - Manikanta Mylavarapu <[email protected]> > > + > > +description: > > + Wireless Connectivity Subsystem (WCSS) Secure Peripheral Image Loader > > loads > > + firmware and power up QDSP6 remoteproc on the Qualcomm IPQ series SoC. > > + > > +properties: > > + compatible: > > + enum: > > + - qcom,ipq5018-wcss-sec-pil > > + - qcom,ipq5332-wcss-sec-pil > > + - qcom,ipq9574-wcss-sec-pil > > + > > + reg: > > + maxItems: 1 > > + > > + firmware-name: > > + maxItems: 1 > > + description: Firmware name for the Hexagon core > > + > > + interrupts: > > + items: > > + - description: Watchdog interrupt > > + - description: Fatal interrupt > > + - description: Ready interrupt > > + - description: Handover interrupt > > + - description: Stop acknowledge interrupt > > + > > + interrupt-names: > > + items: > > + - const: wdog > > + - const: fatal > > + - const: ready > > + - const: handover > > + - const: stop-ack > > + > > + clocks: > > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array > > What is this? How did it ever appear here? Sorry, but this is not a > syntax present anywhere. > > > + > > + clock-names: > > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/string-array > > Neither this. Look, I have never reviewed something like this: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > NAK, that's not a binding style at all. Please do not invent completely > different style. > > What's weird, this change did not happen at v8, so you still kept my > review tag even after inventing this weird code. These were introduced in v6 https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/#t by George, not me. This is why I felt the changes were 'significant' and dropped your reviewed-by tag. Will restore them to the way you had approved earlier and post a new version. Once I restore the above to your approved version, can I include your reviewed-by? Or, shall I wait for your fresh approval of v9. Please advice. Thanks Varada > > + mboxes: > > + items: > > + - description: TMECom mailbox driver > > + > > + qcom,smem-states: > > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array > > + description: States used by the AP to signal the remote processor > > + items: > > + - description: Stop Q6 > > + - description: Shutdown Q6 > > + > > + qcom,smem-state-names: > > + description: > > + Names of the states used by the AP to signal the remote processor > > + items: > > + - const: stop > > + - const: shutdown > > + > > + memory-region: > > + items: > > + - description: Q6 reserved region > > + > > + glink-edge: > > + $ref: /schemas/remoteproc/qcom,glink-edge.yaml# > > + description: > > + Qualcomm G-Link subnode which represents communication edge, channels > > + and devices related to the Modem. > > + unevaluatedProperties: false > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
