Re: [PATCH v6 1/5] dt-bindings: sram: describe the IPQ5424 IMEM as mmio-sram

[Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 1/31/26 9:20 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 04:14:30PM +0530, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
>> Based on the discussion in the linux-arm-msm list, it is not
>> appropriate to define the IMEM (On-Chip SRAM) as syscon or MFD.
>>
>> So drop the compatible from qcom,imem.yaml and add it in sram.yaml
>> binding.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@oss.qualcomm.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in v6:
>> 	* New patch
>> ---
>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml | 1 -
>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml      | 1 +
>>  2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml
>> index c451140962c86f4e8f98437a2830cb2c6a697e63..7bd24305a8c7d98dc6efad81e72dc8d86d8b212b 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml
>> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ properties:
>>          - nvidia,tegra186-sysram
>>          - nvidia,tegra194-sysram
>>          - nvidia,tegra234-sysram
>> +        - qcom,ipq5424-imem
> 
> Bjorn, Konrad, I sadly don't remember the outcome of our discussion. Do
> we need to specify that this SRAM region is Qualcomm something IMEM or
> do we not?

Do you mean BOOT_IMEM vs SYSTEM_IMEM?

I don't think we have a usecase for the former in Linux and I'm not
sure we ever will (plus we already refer to SYSTEM_IMEM as "imem" in
a lot, lot of places)

Konrad