Re: [PATCH v2 09/16] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8250: Add GCC CX power domain

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] DT Binding Violation: The `power-domains` property is added to the `gcc` node but is not documented in the corresponding `qcom,gcc-sm8250.yaml` DT binding schema.
--

--- Patch [9]: [PATCH v2 09/16] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8250: Add GCC CX power domain ---
commit 734b5cf106da5d46876e8b4bb05d32739432959a
Author: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@oss.qualcomm.com>

arm64: dts: qcom: sm8250: Add GCC CX power domain

This commit adds the RPMh CX power domain reference to the GCC node in the
SM8250 device tree. This ensures that votes from GCC GDSC consumers properly
propagate to the RPMh CX domain.

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi
> index 90f8b091634e9..50790cf1c3ca1 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi
> @@ -971,6 +971,7 @@ gcc: clock-controller@100000 {
>  			clocks = <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK>,
>  				 <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK_A>,
>  				 <&sleep_clk>;
> +			power-domains = <&rpmhpd RPMHPD_CX>;

[Severity: Low]
Will running make dtbs_check produce a validation warning for this new
property?

Looking at Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sm8250.yaml, the
binding enforces unevaluatedProperties: false but does not explicitly declare
power-domains.

Should the binding schema be updated alongside this change to allow
power-domains so we avoid build validation failures?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260820-qcom-tie-cx-to-gcc-v2-0-e67ea30d8b7b@oss.qualcomm.com?part=9