Re: [PATCH v3 05/47] dt-bindings: clock: qcom: gcc-sm8450: Add CX power domain

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] Incorrect header inclusion in the device tree binding example.
--

--- Patch [5]: [PATCH v3 05/47] dt-bindings: clock: qcom: gcc-sm8450: Add CX power domain ---
commit c1e862ec1e73b4d84d9b6b88d3c32be76ca192d0
Author: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@oss.qualcomm.com>

dt-bindings: clock: qcom: gcc-sm8450: Add CX power domain

This patch updates the SM8450 GCC device tree binding to model the 
dependency on the RPMh CX power domain. It adds the required power-domain
property and updates the example to demonstrate its use.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sm8450.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sm8450.yaml
> index 3169ac05e1d8a..f6f73db268965 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sm8450.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sm8450.yaml
[ ... ]
> @@ -61,11 +67,13 @@ unevaluatedProperties: false
>  examples:
>    - |
>      #include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,rpmh.h>
> +    #include <dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h>

[Severity: Low]
Should this example include <dt-bindings/power/qcom,rpmhpd.h> instead?

Since SM8450 is a modern SoC using RPMh, it might be more appropriate to
directly include the correct RPMh power domain header rather than relying on
the legacy qcom-rpmpd.h header to transitively resolve the RPMHPD_CX macro.

>      clock-controller@100000 {
>        compatible = "qcom,gcc-sm8450";
>        reg = <0x00100000 0x001f4200>;
>        clocks = <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK>, <&sleep_clk>;
>        clock-names = "bi_tcxo", "sleep_clk";
> +      power-domains = <&rpmhpd RPMHPD_CX>;
[ ... ]

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260824-qcom-tie-cx-to-gcc-v3-0-f1205a92682b@oss.qualcomm.com?part=5