On Tue, Aug 04, 2026 at 10:41:19AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > 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.
Yes, it was a miss and wanted to send revision of [1] after Yijie comments I thought, I acked his comment somewhere later realized I acked his comment internally. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/ -- -Mukesh Ojha
