Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: soc: qcom: qcom,pmic-glink: Add Kaanapali and Glymur compatibles

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 28/10/2025 10:21, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/10/2025 10:19, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Anjelique Melendez <anjelique.melendez@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml      | 7 +++++++
>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml
>>>>>>> index 7085bf88afab..c57022109419 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml
>>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml
>>>>>>> @@ -37,12 +37,19 @@ properties:
>>>>>>>            - const: qcom,pmic-glink
>>>>>>>        - items:
>>>>>>>            - enum:
>>>>>>> +              - qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink
>>>>>>>                - qcom,milos-pmic-glink
>>>>>>>                - qcom,sm8650-pmic-glink
>>>>>>>                - qcom,sm8750-pmic-glink
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink is not compatible with
>>>>>> qcom,sm8750-pmic-glink? If Glymur is compatible with previous
>>>>>> generation, I would expect that here too.
>>>>>
>>>>> And again to re-iterate:
>>>>>
>>>>> If X1E is compatible with SM8550 AND:
>>>>> SM8750 is compatible with SM8550 THEN
>>>>> WHY Glymur is compatible with previous generation but Kaanapali is not
>>>>> compatible with previous generation?
>>>>
>>>> The announcement date does not directly correlate to 'generation'
>>> I don't know exactly this IP block/component, but in general these SoCs
>>> follow some sort of previous design, thus term "generation" is correct
>>> in many cases. Anyway don't be picky about wording.
>>>
>>> You can remove the generation and statement will be the same.
>>>
>>> If A is compatible with B AND
>>> C is compatible with B
>>> THEN
>>>
>>> WHY D is compatible with (A and B) but E is not
>>> compatible with (C and B)?
>>>
>>> Easier for you?
>>>
>>> Why nitpicking on wording "generation" instead of explaining the
>>> problems or issues with bindings...
>>
>> What I'm saying is that Kaanapali and Glymur are disjoint projects
>> that shouldn't be thought of as having a common base
> 
> 
> No, please go through my A B C D E list to understand the problem. I did
> not suggest what you reply here.


Heh, and don't get me started on driver...

{ .compatible = "qcom,glymur-pmic-glink", .data =
&pmic_glink_kaanapali_data },
{ .compatible = "qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink", .data =
&pmic_glink_kaanapali_data },

So how is now Glymur using Kaanapali, so basically compatible with it?

Even more questions I did not consider.



Best regards,
Krzysztof