On Tue, Aug 04, 2026 at 11:11:29AM -0500, Bjorn Andersson 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. > > > > This will introduce a dt-validation error in > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdx75.dtsi, which you fix in patch 2.
Right, but it will come at some point if we want to fix this. > > But while the binding says qcom,sdx75-mpss-pas alone isn't a valid > compatible, we support that in the driver, so we're maintaining > backwards compatibility with current DT - until someone cleans up the > driver to match the contract defined by the binding. > > It might be reasonable to accept both of these hiccups, but you need to > document the upside of it. > Thanks. > > But if I read this correctly, it seems I merged qcom,hawi-mpss-pas and > qcom,maili-mpss-pas prematurely. Based on the commit message in [1] I > thought they would fall back to sm8650, but this patch says that was > wrong of me - meaning that [1] should have contained a driver change as > well. I.e. you didn't test [1], right? Yes, it was wrong of me. I should have acknowledged Yijie's comments publicly, saying it along with the sdx75 fix, and I did that internally with him. I did test it against Hawi, but not for Maili, which is what Yijie commented to take care of Maili along with Hawi. > > As I said in the reply to Krzysztof, I have dropped [1] again from my > queue. Sure, will rebase this series accordingly with some documentation updates as per your comment on this one. > > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > -Mukesh
