Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: arm-smmu: Constrain clocks for newer Qualcomm variants

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] The new conditional block disallowing clocks for Application Processor SMMUs omits `qcom,qcm2290-smmu-500`, `qcom,sar2130p-smmu-500`, `qcom,sc7280-smmu-500`, `qcom,sc8180x-smmu-500`, and `qcom,sc8280xp-smmu-500`.
- [Low] Redundant schema constraints for `qcom,sm6350-smmu-500` and `qcom,sm6375-smmu-500`.
--

commit 29d4ea0f08c145039e07f22d38052f086bbd9138
Author: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>

dt-bindings: arm-smmu: Constrain clocks for newer Qualcomm variants

This commit adds missing constraints for the glymur variant and several
other qualcomm application processor variants to restrict the clocks
property.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml
> index 06fb5c8e7547c..ed0d10157bd61 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml
[ ... ]
> @@ -595,6 +597,7 @@ allOf:
>                - qcom,sdm845-smmu-500
>                - qcom,sdx55-smmu-500
>                - qcom,sdx65-smmu-500
> +              - qcom,sdx75-smmu-500
>                - qcom,sm6350-smmu-500
>                - qcom,sm6375-smmu-500
>      then:
> @@ -602,6 +605,39 @@ allOf:
>          clock-names: false
>          clocks: false
>  
> +  # Disallow clocks for all other platforms where specific compatible is used
> +  # with different fallbacks and only one combination has no clocks
> +  - if:
> +      properties:
> +        compatible:
> +          items:
> +            - enum:
> +                - qcom,eliza-smmu-500
> +                - qcom,glymur-smmu-500
> +                - qcom,kaanapali-smmu-500

Are there a few application processor variants missing from this new block?

It looks like qcom,qcm2290-smmu-500, qcom,sar2130p-smmu-500,
qcom,sc7280-smmu-500, qcom,sc8180x-smmu-500, and qcom,sc8280xp-smmu-500
also share this two-flavor pattern.

Without them included here, will device tree nodes specifying clocks for
these variants silently pass schema validation?

> +                - qcom,milos-smmu-500
> +                - qcom,qcs615-smmu-500
> +                - qcom,qcs8300-smmu-500
> +                - qcom,sa8775p-smmu-500
> +                - qcom,sm6115-smmu-500
> +                - qcom,sm6125-smmu-500
> +                - qcom,sm6350-smmu-500
> +                - qcom,sm6375-smmu-500

This isn't a bug, but are these two variants redundant here?

Since qcom,sm6350-smmu-500 and qcom,sm6375-smmu-500 are already listed
in the previous block to unconditionally enforce clocks as false, does
adding them to this more specific fallback block have any additional effect?

> +                - qcom,sm8150-smmu-500
> +                - qcom,sm8250-smmu-500
[ ... ]

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260519074059.61405-2-krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com?part=1