From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62EDA46AF06 for ; Fri, 15 May 2026 11:29:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778844591; cv=none; b=R4bHpeBs/ZBsq+9YeD8jTpB1m+14oFWQHmWvFjbkhlv/txHUJf6XNwEgrpQn+nsHFe5TqaxR4gE+FchT2t40z7hDhf9bDG8hIt62LsG5cShpPz4P1XFyD/I3l/BlISxDStFiy9TWi6fj/MyYEPLOa7BncVMLn6C9q2PWaopcQiA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778844591; c=relaxed/simple; bh=txlxUr5DJVEFtM3LpEoJTYszKxgADy7JI8PLX2y91Ig=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=m9Jq4wYpoPAZohDYPhaNekGa8lNVFm6KBFg+yLWnPwPAo4Fzm2mGMPuQCu+Vy2whh8OxrBw6q7fyV8FWmQ2uA1HEZ+V5717eMZpLBEUKT0oIwqwqM+H2W1qeo/hmyi/Liy8vxCaN4m6tNWXKI3BV3KiIwk1vQELW9ll2atzB6mg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=fg3u34xy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="fg3u34xy" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C4D66C2BCB0; Fri, 15 May 2026 11:29:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1778844591; bh=txlxUr5DJVEFtM3LpEoJTYszKxgADy7JI8PLX2y91Ig=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=fg3u34xyLyjtlWCLeSFpoKUteN58aWYwywG5/jsKX0t4M1cGGsmtXbhASTYrKNHF7 Ov2cOsPBbD1N2YV1f4O7LY3BqCWJwnWSNDPORudsp7oKxprS6CcGPRb7en8MRaqOmx zZ9p0A9nUA8LfGo3TTpNEKc+lCJgSXUZfW3d6m8caqFcxcTy8txba3CG//OVBbJiXr c1peJGHNrx+XBPw5r414C1K5/GkysyCrNDaoTIBnw5q/sPdhhToY3h152kZ3D/2roj Qb/r67b65QLfTNTx70xzMfUbYm5nQTkVLB3hgY3g71D3S2QGcE9Txd97tBF9Uh/Enh 4eNyq78ykSo+Q== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document Eliza CQM and CQS EVK boards Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Abel Vesa" Cc: robh@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260515-eliza-bindings-evk-v1-1-8deb81ed86dd@oss.qualcomm.com> References: <20260515-eliza-bindings-evk-v1-1-8deb81ed86dd@oss.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 15 May 2026 11:29:50 +0000 Message-Id: <20260515112950.C4D66C2BCB0@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: 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 om= its the intermediate System-on-Module (SoM) and the specific SoC variant co= mpatibles. - [Medium] The compatible strings and commit message introduce typographica= l errors by using "CQM", "CQS", "CQ7790M", and "CQ7790S" instead of Qualcom= m's standard "QCM" and "QCS" product naming convention. -- commit 5133e80c24b03ea2551cf3393bae586847e425a8 Author: Abel Vesa 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/Documentat= ion/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: > =20 > - 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 --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260515-eliza-bind= ings-evk-v1-1-8deb81ed86dd@oss.qualcomm.com?part=3D1