On Mon, Aug 03, 2026 at 11:30:20PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote: > SDX75, Hawi and Maili MPSS are compatible with the SM8650 MPSS as > they share the same set of interrupts, memory regions and power domains. > Rather than describing them as standalone compatibles, model them as > fallbacks to qcom,sm8650-mpss-pas. > > Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <[email protected]> > --- > .../bindings/remoteproc/qcom,sm8550-pas.yaml | 29 +++++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,sm8550-pas.yaml > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,sm8550-pas.yaml > index a062188861ff..f722c55aadf4 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,sm8550-pas.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,sm8550-pas.yaml > @@ -18,9 +18,6 @@ properties: > oneOf: > - enum: > - qcom,eliza-cdsp-pas > - - qcom,hawi-mpss-pas
There is no known user of this. Why do we even document this? This is unfortunately one more example why I should accept early bindings without users. Best regards, Krzysztof
