From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 9726F40F75A; Mon, 24 Aug 2026 12:28:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787574502; cv=none; b=MbwZOIwVv9iH8njb8F/ZKA6xXcFODJ12J1mrbCbAutpsX+ngWmvtdCoUO4YMEElSt+6CCTZvdd77GLDyGJPg1x8ZmvbvU9MqqUPp+eUqzdMdPkLXMZbaStD4z9Fzk0JyDQnI9huQM5aeCPsCo6EEtiVm6CK5lmNxfxn5b4eT2Jg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787574502; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DpkbJzqYN6+Oi0Qsu2Kc0QgbGV+0QbcF7yzdcS7rOQ0=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=pjMLPyXgni4HC3PhuCDlseWBTkYNZKDc4lnkY1G+B7q0/LLnPiGE0ywdWyCuHZ8dhZYBusro2+GYvRLBvXBZV5uZ5HKwdsHedlb7WJ+jqBbrDRdSo6L8xrWfkOVF7KXu3tHDKwim6YpHMSVoAVDAhBADgXdicmMQxB3LSYuVgWs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=fQOloJmz; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="fQOloJmz" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 390441F00A3D; Mon, 24 Aug 2026 12:28:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1787574499; bh=oCnuFgwXGSX4rpuyTRQq3RbtZSs0QOHke/H0Jf1nxR0=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=fQOloJmz3fkaImU3iHyGY5ALOeHikfV2TpiqirYtD4JSfUvNk9XMQD/6EBfBf/MJR KvdjY2mPIHWbzI13JRKmSyH1VgTBZRJOtynOLAFcOKu0DI6GEKk2naUNhIy4Ji+WnP IedZO0MI1GXQKz0Cq7qcuK8n8gX5xgsQxC1Ne5KZaoTALIl8OrJWQtoGBF0X8PYjk0 7xLzjtwfKJ6ycYhHeviJnTIkNapNhunxgQ9QcL+nVBesp05tU2gf0wFvUBjDZVZBE2 ugSEZZGNgi2fD3QttH3QKUUDbWnVEhWMBPQ5IfW3bT2VXwMYmp/Nr+D1eJ3d61buL/ UOcPwIvBuGIVw== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 37/47] arm64: dts: qcom: sdx75: Add GCC CX power domain Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Abel Vesa" Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260824-qcom-tie-cx-to-gcc-v3-37-f1205a92682b@oss.qualcomm.com> References: <20260824-qcom-tie-cx-to-gcc-v3-0-f1205a92682b@oss.qualcomm.com> <20260824-qcom-tie-cx-to-gcc-v3-37-f1205a92682b@oss.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 12:28:18 +0000 Message-Id: <20260824122819.390441F00A3D@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 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Low] The `power-domains` property is added to the GCC device tree node, = but it is not documented in the corresponding `qcom,sdx75-gcc.yaml` device = tree binding schema. -- --- Patch [37]: [PATCH v3 37/47] arm64: dts: qcom: sdx75: Add GCC CX power = domain --- commit 31a230bc14fd1ed4b8fc915db1a0015701f6c99b Author: Abel Vesa arm64: dts: qcom: sdx75: Add GCC CX power domain This commit adds a reference to the RPMh CX power domain in the SDX75 GCC node. This allows consumers of GCC-provided GDSCs to propagate their local domain votes to the required CX state. > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdx75.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qc= om/sdx75.dtsi > index 85cc9c6e6f83f..d4ef90c4a8db2 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdx75.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdx75.dtsi > @@ -487,6 +487,7 @@ gcc: clock-controller@80000 { > #clock-cells =3D <1>; > #reset-cells =3D <1>; > #power-domain-cells =3D <1>; > + power-domains =3D <&rpmhpd RPMHPD_CX>; [Severity: Low] Will adding this property cause a dtbs_check validation regression? The Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sdx75-gcc.yaml schema does not appear to document the power-domains property, and it enforces unevaluatedProperties: false. Does the schema need to be updated alongside this change to prevent validation errors? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260824-qcom-tie-c= x-to-gcc-v3-0-f1205a92682b@oss.qualcomm.com?part=3D37