Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] remoteproc: imx_rproc: Support i.MX95

[Peng Fan <peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>]

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-
>> > a7123e857dfb@nxp.com:
>> > 
>> > 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.

[1]https://lore.kernel.org/linux-remoteproc/20250629172512.14857-3-hiagofranco@gmail.com/T/#u

Thanks,
Peng