[PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document Eliza CQM and CQS EVK boards

[PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document Eliza CQM and CQS EVK boards

[Abel Vesa]

Document the compatible strings for the Qualcomm Eliza CQM and CQS EVK
boards. Both boards are built from a base board paired with a SoM which
is populated with either CQ7790M or CQ7790S (Eliza variants), PMICs,
LPDDR, eMMC and UFS.

Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@oss.qualcomm.com>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
index 2741c07e9f41..28a18254b4b7 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
@@ -63,6 +63,8 @@ properties:
 
       - items:
           - enum:
+              - qcom,eliza-cqm-evk
+              - qcom,eliza-cqs-evk
               - qcom,eliza-mtp
           - const: qcom,eliza
 

---
base-commit: e98d21c170b01ddef366f023bbfcf6b31509fa83
change-id: 20260514-eliza-bindings-evk-1f05f1c699d5

Best regards,
--  
Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@oss.qualcomm.com>

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document Eliza CQM and CQS EVK boards

[sashiko-bot]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] The compatible strings strictly enforce a 2-element list that omits the intermediate System-on-Module (SoM) and the specific SoC variant compatibles.
- [Medium] The compatible strings and commit message introduce typographical errors by using "CQM", "CQS", "CQ7790M", and "CQ7790S" instead of Qualcomm's standard "QCM" and "QCS" product naming convention.
--

commit 5133e80c24b03ea2551cf3393bae586847e425a8
Author: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@oss.qualcomm.com>

dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document Eliza CQM and CQS EVK boards

This commit documents the compatible strings for the Qualcomm Eliza CQM and
CQS EVK boards, which are built from a base board paired with a SoM that is
populated with either CQ7790M or CQ7790S, PMICs, LPDDR, eMMC and UFS.

> dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document Eliza CQM and CQS EVK boards
>
> Document the compatible strings for the Qualcomm Eliza CQM and CQS EVK
> boards. Both boards are built from a base board paired with a SoM which
> is populated with either CQ7790M or CQ7790S (Eliza variants), PMICs,
> LPDDR, eMMC and UFS.

This isn't a bug, but there appear to be typos in the product names here.
Should CQM, CQS, CQ7790M, and CQ7790S be QCM, QCS, QCM7790, and QCS7790 to
match standard Qualcomm naming conventions?

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> index 2741c07e9f416..28a18254b4b75 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> @@ -63,6 +63,8 @@ properties:
>  
>        - items:
>            - enum:
> +              - qcom,eliza-cqm-evk
> +              - qcom,eliza-cqs-evk

If the typo mentioned above is confirmed, will these compatible strings
permanently bake the misspelled cqm and cqs names into the device tree ABI?

Additionally, does this 2-element list correctly represent the hardware
hierarchy? The commit message notes these EVK boards are composed of a base
board paired with a SoM populated with specific SoC variants. Placing these
compatibles in this block restricts the list to exactly two elements, which
omits the intermediate SoM and SoC variant compatibles. This might cause
validation to fail on a device tree that attempts to include the SoM
compatible string.

>                - qcom,eliza-mtp
>            - const: qcom,eliza

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260515-eliza-bindings-evk-v1-1-8deb81ed86dd@oss.qualcomm.com?part=1

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document Eliza CQM and CQS EVK boards

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 02:13:31PM +0300, Abel Vesa wrote:
> Document the compatible strings for the Qualcomm Eliza CQM and CQS EVK
> boards. Both boards are built from a base board paired with a SoM which
> is populated with either CQ7790M or CQ7790S (Eliza variants), PMICs,
> LPDDR, eMMC and UFS.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@oss.qualcomm.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> index 2741c07e9f41..28a18254b4b7 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> @@ -63,6 +63,8 @@ properties:
>  
>        - items:
>            - enum:
> +              - qcom,eliza-cqm-evk
> +              - qcom,eliza-cqs-evk

When we talked privately, I asked to mirror Shikra approach. But you did
not - it's different from what Shikra sent.

Shikra received my comments - but you did not mirror these, either.
Basically you went with third approach... well, I think this is the same
case as in Shikra, thus comments from Shikra apply here (at least what
I expect to see). Also, another reason is that this should be
consistent.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document Eliza CQM and CQS EVK boards

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 02:13:31PM +0300, Abel Vesa wrote:
> Document the compatible strings for the Qualcomm Eliza CQM and CQS EVK
> boards. Both boards are built from a base board paired with a SoM which
> is populated with either CQ7790M or CQ7790S (Eliza variants), PMICs,
> LPDDR, eMMC and UFS.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@oss.qualcomm.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

Heh, I noticed only after sending email - where is any user of that?

I expressed it many times - we do not take bindings without users.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document Eliza CQM and CQS EVK boards

[Abel Vesa]

On 26-05-16 11:58:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 02:13:31PM +0300, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > Document the compatible strings for the Qualcomm Eliza CQM and CQS EVK
> > boards. Both boards are built from a base board paired with a SoM which
> > is populated with either CQ7790M or CQ7790S (Eliza variants), PMICs,
> > LPDDR, eMMC and UFS.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@oss.qualcomm.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> > index 2741c07e9f41..28a18254b4b7 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> > @@ -63,6 +63,8 @@ properties:
> >  
> >        - items:
> >            - enum:
> > +              - qcom,eliza-cqm-evk
> > +              - qcom,eliza-cqs-evk
> 
> When we talked privately, I asked to mirror Shikra approach. But you did
> not - it's different from what Shikra sent.

Because I think it is wrong to describe the SoM since it can't be used
without a base board. Listing SoMs is useless, IMO. But maybe I'm wrong.

So my reason for doing this is basically reducing the list to only
describe entire setups: MTP, CQM EVK and CQS EVK. No SoMs.

> 
> Shikra received my comments - but you did not mirror these, either.
> Basically you went with third approach... well, I think this is the same
> case as in Shikra, thus comments from Shikra apply here (at least what
> I expect to see). Also, another reason is that this should be
> consistent.

I did read go through your comments, but giving the rationale I
described above. I did realize just now that I misunderstood your
comment on Shikra patchset.

Anyway, will rework according to your suggestion.

Thanks for reviewing!

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document Eliza CQM and CQS EVK boards

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 16/05/2026 12:27, Abel Vesa wrote:
> On 26-05-16 11:58:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 02:13:31PM +0300, Abel Vesa wrote:
>>> Document the compatible strings for the Qualcomm Eliza CQM and CQS EVK
>>> boards. Both boards are built from a base board paired with a SoM which
>>> is populated with either CQ7790M or CQ7790S (Eliza variants), PMICs,
>>> LPDDR, eMMC and UFS.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 2 ++
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>>> index 2741c07e9f41..28a18254b4b7 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>>> @@ -63,6 +63,8 @@ properties:
>>>  
>>>        - items:
>>>            - enum:
>>> +              - qcom,eliza-cqm-evk
>>> +              - qcom,eliza-cqs-evk
>>
>> When we talked privately, I asked to mirror Shikra approach. But you did
>> not - it's different from what Shikra sent.
> 
> Because I think it is wrong to describe the SoM since it can't be used
> without a base board. Listing SoMs is useless, IMO. But maybe I'm wrong.
> 
> So my reason for doing this is basically reducing the list to only
> describe entire setups: MTP, CQM EVK and CQS EVK. No SoMs.

That's really unique statement. All or most of other vendors, including
the most popular for SoMs - NXP, use it. But of course existing practice
is not the sole reason.

The reason is that it is the same useful as having SoC compatible. You
cannot use SoC without base board, then why do you have SoC compatible?
To allow quirks for the SoC. And here to allow quirks for the SoM, since
it is a dedicated and specific hardware component.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document Eliza CQM and CQS EVK boards

[Abel Vesa]

On 26-05-16 11:59:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 02:13:31PM +0300, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > Document the compatible strings for the Qualcomm Eliza CQM and CQS EVK
> > boards. Both boards are built from a base board paired with a SoM which
> > is populated with either CQ7790M or CQ7790S (Eliza variants), PMICs,
> > LPDDR, eMMC and UFS.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@oss.qualcomm.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> Heh, I noticed only after sending email - where is any user of that?
> 
> I expressed it many times - we do not take bindings without users.

Well, my intention for the DT patchset was to include the eliza-cqm-som.dtsi
and eliza-cqm-ek.dts as well, basically having the eliza-cqm-som.dtsi
include the eliza-cqs-som.dtsi and later on add the modem (and the rest
of the CQM) in there.

But then, I realized that I don't know exactly the differences between
CQM and CQS, specifically the SoM related ones.

So I decided to send without the CQM entirely.

Anyway, I'll respin this patch with CQM dropped.

Thanks for reviewing!

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document Eliza CQM and CQS EVK boards

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 16/05/2026 12:34, Abel Vesa wrote:
> On 26-05-16 11:59:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 02:13:31PM +0300, Abel Vesa wrote:
>>> Document the compatible strings for the Qualcomm Eliza CQM and CQS EVK
>>> boards. Both boards are built from a base board paired with a SoM which
>>> is populated with either CQ7790M or CQ7790S (Eliza variants), PMICs,
>>> LPDDR, eMMC and UFS.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 2 ++
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> Heh, I noticed only after sending email - where is any user of that?
>>
>> I expressed it many times - we do not take bindings without users.
> 
> Well, my intention for the DT patchset was to include the eliza-cqm-som.dtsi
> and eliza-cqm-ek.dts as well, basically having the eliza-cqm-som.dtsi
> include the eliza-cqs-som.dtsi and later on add the modem (and the rest
> of the CQM) in there.
> 
> But then, I realized that I don't know exactly the differences between
> CQM and CQS, specifically the SoM related ones.
> 
> So I decided to send without the CQM entirely.

But it is not about CQM. There is no user of any of these - neither CQS
nor CQM.

And still whatever intention you had, it cannot bypass the rules - we do
not take bindings without users. They make almost no sense to the
project, because the goal is not to document entire world's hardware in
the DT.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document Eliza CQM and CQS EVK boards

[Abel Vesa]

On 26-05-16 12:37:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 16/05/2026 12:34, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > On 26-05-16 11:59:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 02:13:31PM +0300, Abel Vesa wrote:
> >>> Document the compatible strings for the Qualcomm Eliza CQM and CQS EVK
> >>> boards. Both boards are built from a base board paired with a SoM which
> >>> is populated with either CQ7790M or CQ7790S (Eliza variants), PMICs,
> >>> LPDDR, eMMC and UFS.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@oss.qualcomm.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 2 ++
> >>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> Heh, I noticed only after sending email - where is any user of that?
> >>
> >> I expressed it many times - we do not take bindings without users.
> > 
> > Well, my intention for the DT patchset was to include the eliza-cqm-som.dtsi
> > and eliza-cqm-ek.dts as well, basically having the eliza-cqm-som.dtsi
> > include the eliza-cqs-som.dtsi and later on add the modem (and the rest
> > of the CQM) in there.
> > 
> > But then, I realized that I don't know exactly the differences between
> > CQM and CQS, specifically the SoM related ones.
> > 
> > So I decided to send without the CQM entirely.
> 
> But it is not about CQM. There is no user of any of these - neither CQS
> nor CQM.

I'm not sure I understand this one. Here is the CQS user:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260515-eliza-dts-qcs-evk-v1-2-7169d78a33e1@oss.qualcomm.com/

> 
> And still whatever intention you had, it cannot bypass the rules - we do
> not take bindings without users. They make almost no sense to the
> project, because the goal is not to document entire world's hardware in
> the DT.

I agree. I should've replied back to this thread to say it should be
ignored as I should send a v2 without the CQM.

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document Eliza CQM and CQS EVK boards

[Abel Vesa]

On 26-05-16 12:30:41, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 16/05/2026 12:27, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > On 26-05-16 11:58:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 02:13:31PM +0300, Abel Vesa wrote:
> >>> Document the compatible strings for the Qualcomm Eliza CQM and CQS EVK
> >>> boards. Both boards are built from a base board paired with a SoM which
> >>> is populated with either CQ7790M or CQ7790S (Eliza variants), PMICs,
> >>> LPDDR, eMMC and UFS.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@oss.qualcomm.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 2 ++
> >>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> >>> index 2741c07e9f41..28a18254b4b7 100644
> >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> >>> @@ -63,6 +63,8 @@ properties:
> >>>  
> >>>        - items:
> >>>            - enum:
> >>> +              - qcom,eliza-cqm-evk
> >>> +              - qcom,eliza-cqs-evk
> >>
> >> When we talked privately, I asked to mirror Shikra approach. But you did
> >> not - it's different from what Shikra sent.
> > 
> > Because I think it is wrong to describe the SoM since it can't be used
> > without a base board. Listing SoMs is useless, IMO. But maybe I'm wrong.
> > 
> > So my reason for doing this is basically reducing the list to only
> > describe entire setups: MTP, CQM EVK and CQS EVK. No SoMs.
> 
> That's really unique statement. All or most of other vendors, including
> the most popular for SoMs - NXP, use it. But of course existing practice
> is not the sole reason.
> 
> The reason is that it is the same useful as having SoC compatible. You
> cannot use SoC without base board, then why do you have SoC compatible?
> To allow quirks for the SoC. And here to allow quirks for the SoM, since
> it is a dedicated and specific hardware component.

Yeah, makes sense.

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document Eliza CQM and CQS EVK boards

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 16/05/2026 13:12, Abel Vesa wrote:
> On 26-05-16 12:37:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 16/05/2026 12:34, Abel Vesa wrote:
>>> On 26-05-16 11:59:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 02:13:31PM +0300, Abel Vesa wrote:
>>>>> Document the compatible strings for the Qualcomm Eliza CQM and CQS EVK
>>>>> boards. Both boards are built from a base board paired with a SoM which
>>>>> is populated with either CQ7790M or CQ7790S (Eliza variants), PMICs,
>>>>> LPDDR, eMMC and UFS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 2 ++
>>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> Heh, I noticed only after sending email - where is any user of that?
>>>>
>>>> I expressed it many times - we do not take bindings without users.
>>>
>>> Well, my intention for the DT patchset was to include the eliza-cqm-som.dtsi
>>> and eliza-cqm-ek.dts as well, basically having the eliza-cqm-som.dtsi
>>> include the eliza-cqs-som.dtsi and later on add the modem (and the rest
>>> of the CQM) in there.
>>>
>>> But then, I realized that I don't know exactly the differences between
>>> CQM and CQS, specifically the SoM related ones.
>>>
>>> So I decided to send without the CQM entirely.
>>
>> But it is not about CQM. There is no user of any of these - neither CQS
>> nor CQM.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand this one. Here is the CQS user:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260515-eliza-dts-qcs-evk-v1-2-7169d78a33e1@oss.qualcomm.com/

Why is that posted separately? This breaks every practice we had,
including all my recent comments complains on internal chats and in
public to Nord, Shikra and IPQ upstreaming about grouping patches. :/


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document Eliza CQM and CQS EVK boards

[Abel Vesa]

On 26-05-16 13:22:19, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 16/05/2026 13:12, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > On 26-05-16 12:37:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 16/05/2026 12:34, Abel Vesa wrote:
> >>> On 26-05-16 11:59:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 02:13:31PM +0300, Abel Vesa wrote:
> >>>>> Document the compatible strings for the Qualcomm Eliza CQM and CQS EVK
> >>>>> boards. Both boards are built from a base board paired with a SoM which
> >>>>> is populated with either CQ7790M or CQ7790S (Eliza variants), PMICs,
> >>>>> LPDDR, eMMC and UFS.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@oss.qualcomm.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 2 ++
> >>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> Heh, I noticed only after sending email - where is any user of that?
> >>>>
> >>>> I expressed it many times - we do not take bindings without users.
> >>>
> >>> Well, my intention for the DT patchset was to include the eliza-cqm-som.dtsi
> >>> and eliza-cqm-ek.dts as well, basically having the eliza-cqm-som.dtsi
> >>> include the eliza-cqs-som.dtsi and later on add the modem (and the rest
> >>> of the CQM) in there.
> >>>
> >>> But then, I realized that I don't know exactly the differences between
> >>> CQM and CQS, specifically the SoM related ones.
> >>>
> >>> So I decided to send without the CQM entirely.
> >>
> >> But it is not about CQM. There is no user of any of these - neither CQS
> >> nor CQM.
> > 
> > I'm not sure I understand this one. Here is the CQS user:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260515-eliza-dts-qcs-evk-v1-2-7169d78a33e1@oss.qualcomm.com/
> 
> Why is that posted separately? This breaks every practice we had,
> including all my recent comments complains on internal chats and in
> public to Nord, Shikra and IPQ upstreaming about grouping patches. :/

Yeah, my bad. It should've been sent together with the DT.

Will include it there when respinning that patchset.

Sorry for the mess.