Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq5210: Introduce RDP504 variant specific DT file

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] The eMMC and NAND variants of the IPQ5210 RDP504 board use identical `model` and `compatible` strings, making them indistinguishable to the bootloader and userspace.
- [Low] The newly added device tree file `ipq5210-rdp504-nand.dts` is missing from the subsystem `Makefile`, meaning it will not be compiled.
--

--- Patch [3]: [PATCH v3 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq5210: Introduce RDP504 variant specific DT file ---
commit 063e69c2f98cf6d7bdbb548ab9f8b5c63c82cda2
Author: Varadarajan Narayanan <varadarajan.narayanan@oss.qualcomm.com>

arm64: dts: qcom: ipq5210: Introduce RDP504 variant specific DT file
    
Add two DT files, one for the default eMMC variant and one for the NAND
variant.

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq5210-rdp504-nand.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq5210-rdp504-nand.dts
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..0902681669b4b
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq5210-rdp504-nand.dts

[Severity: Low]
Is a change to arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/Makefile missing from this patch?

Without adding this file to the Makefile (e.g., dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM) += 
ipq5210-rdp504-nand.dtb), the build system will silently ignore it and fail
to produce the DTB.

> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> +/*
> + * Copyright (c) Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. and/or its subsidiaries.
> + */
> +
> +/dts-v1/;
> +
> +#include "ipq5210-rdp504-common.dtsi"
> +
> +/ {
> +	model = "Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. IPQ5210 RDP504";
> +	compatible = "qcom,ipq5210-rdp504", "qcom,ipq5210";

[Severity: Medium]
Both the NAND and eMMC variants use identical model and compatible strings.

Will this make it impossible for a bootloader or userspace to dynamically
distinguish between the two distinct hardware configurations?

If a generic bootloader relies on the compatible or model strings to match
hardware to a DTB, could this ambiguity cause the wrong DTB to be selected?

[ ... ]

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq5210-rdp504.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq5210-rdp504.dts
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..cd65826944e34
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq5210-rdp504.dts
> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> +/*
> + * Copyright (c) Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. and/or its subsidiaries.
> + */
> +
> +/dts-v1/;
> +
> +#include "ipq5210-rdp504-common.dtsi"
> +
> +/ {
> +	model = "Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. IPQ5210 RDP504";
> +	compatible = "qcom,ipq5210-rdp504", "qcom,ipq5210";

[Severity: Medium]
Does this eMMC variant also need distinct model and compatible strings to
safely differentiate it from the NAND variant above?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260723-08-dts-v3-0-074eb131f382@oss.qualcomm.com?part=3