[PATCH] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom: Document Glymur CPUCP mailbox controller binding

[PATCH] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom: Document Glymur CPUCP mailbox controller binding

[Sibi Sankar]

Document CPU Control Processor (CPUCP) mailbox controller for Qualcomm
Glymur SoCs. It is software compatible with X1E80100 CPUCP mailbox
controller hence fallback to it.

Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <sibi.sankar@oss.qualcomm.com>
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom,cpucp-mbox.yaml     | 9 +++++++--
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom,cpucp-mbox.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom,cpucp-mbox.yaml
index f7342d04beec..9122c3d2dc30 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom,cpucp-mbox.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom,cpucp-mbox.yaml
@@ -15,8 +15,13 @@ description:
 
 properties:
   compatible:
-    items:
-      - const: qcom,x1e80100-cpucp-mbox
+    oneOf:
+      - items:
+          - enum:
+              - qcom,glymur-cpucp-mbox
+          - const: qcom,x1e80100-cpucp-mbox
+      - enum:
+          - qcom,x1e80100-cpucp-mbox
 
   reg:
     items:
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom: Document Glymur CPUCP mailbox controller binding

[Rob Herring (Arm)]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2025 20:18:31 +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> Document CPU Control Processor (CPUCP) mailbox controller for Qualcomm
> Glymur SoCs. It is software compatible with X1E80100 CPUCP mailbox
> controller hence fallback to it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <sibi.sankar@oss.qualcomm.com>
> ---
>  .../devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom,cpucp-mbox.yaml     | 9 +++++++--
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 

Acked-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org>

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom: Document Glymur CPUCP mailbox controller binding

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 24/09/2025 23:48, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> Document CPU Control Processor (CPUCP) mailbox controller for Qualcomm
> Glymur SoCs. It is software compatible with X1E80100 CPUCP mailbox
> controller hence fallback to it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <sibi.sankar@oss.qualcomm.com>

This should be squashed with Kaanapali. Commit msg is the same. Contents
is the same.

This entire split is just huge churn, huge duplication of work and quite
a lot of review put onto the community. You should have coordinated your
work better.

I am dissapointed because you just don't think about the reviewing
process, about what maintainers should do with that. You just send what
was told you to send.

Explain to us - why do we want to have two 99% same patches sent the
SAME DAY from the same company and do same work - review and applying -
twice, instead of having only one?

Why maintainers should accept this?

Best regards,
Krzysztof