Re: [PATCH 1/9] dt-bindings: nvmem: imx-ocotp: Add support for secure-enclave

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 01:52:16PM +0200, Frieder Schrempf wrote:
> From: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@kontron.de>
> 
> Some SoCs like the i.MX9 family allow full access to the fuses only
> through the secure enclave firmware API. Add a property to reference
> the secure enclave node and let the driver use the API.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@kontron.de>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/imx-ocotp.yaml | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/imx-ocotp.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/imx-ocotp.yaml
> index a8076d0e2737..14a6429f4a4c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/imx-ocotp.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/imx-ocotp.yaml
> @@ -53,6 +53,10 @@ properties:
>    reg:
>      maxItems: 1
>  
> +  secure-enclave:
> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle
> +    description: A phandle to the secure enclave node

Two things here:
1. Here you describe what for is that phandle, how it is used by the
hardware. Currently the description repeats the property name and type,
so not much useful.

2. If you access OTP via firmware, then this is completely different
interface than MMIO, thus:
A. reg is not appropriate
B. Device is very different thus it has different compatible and I even
claim should be in different binding. Devices having completely
different SW interface should not be in the same binding, at least
usually.

If any of above is not accurate, then your commit msg should answer why
and give some background.

Best regards,
Krzysztof