Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document Eliza CQM and CQS EVK boards

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] The compatible strings strictly enforce a 2-element list that omits the intermediate System-on-Module (SoM) and the specific SoC variant compatibles.
- [Medium] The compatible strings and commit message introduce typographical errors by using "CQM", "CQS", "CQ7790M", and "CQ7790S" instead of Qualcomm's standard "QCM" and "QCS" product naming convention.
--

commit 5133e80c24b03ea2551cf3393bae586847e425a8
Author: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@oss.qualcomm.com>

dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document Eliza CQM and CQS EVK boards

This commit documents the compatible strings for the Qualcomm Eliza CQM and
CQS EVK boards, which are built from a base board paired with a SoM that is
populated with either CQ7790M or CQ7790S, PMICs, LPDDR, eMMC and UFS.

> dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document Eliza CQM and CQS EVK boards
>
> Document the compatible strings for the Qualcomm Eliza CQM and CQS EVK
> boards. Both boards are built from a base board paired with a SoM which
> is populated with either CQ7790M or CQ7790S (Eliza variants), PMICs,
> LPDDR, eMMC and UFS.

This isn't a bug, but there appear to be typos in the product names here.
Should CQM, CQS, CQ7790M, and CQ7790S be QCM, QCS, QCM7790, and QCS7790 to
match standard Qualcomm naming conventions?

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> index 2741c07e9f416..28a18254b4b75 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> @@ -63,6 +63,8 @@ properties:
>  
>        - items:
>            - enum:
> +              - qcom,eliza-cqm-evk
> +              - qcom,eliza-cqs-evk

If the typo mentioned above is confirmed, will these compatible strings
permanently bake the misspelled cqm and cqs names into the device tree ABI?

Additionally, does this 2-element list correctly represent the hardware
hierarchy? The commit message notes these EVK boards are composed of a base
board paired with a SoM populated with specific SoC variants. Placing these
compatibles in this block restricts the list to exactly two elements, which
omits the intermediate SoM and SoC variant compatibles. This might cause
validation to fail on a device tree that attempts to include the SoM
compatible string.

>                - qcom,eliza-mtp
>            - const: qcom,eliza

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260515-eliza-bindings-evk-v1-1-8deb81ed86dd@oss.qualcomm.com?part=1