Re: [PATCH v42 2/7] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: add imx-se-fw binding doc

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] Direct contradiction between the architectural documentation for the i.MX95 Secure Enclave and the implemented device tree binding schema.
--

--- Patch [2]: [PATCH v42 2/7] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: add imx-se-fw binding doc ---
commit a9570710d7ea386acbf5fca1ead47f270b0bbd1e
Author: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@nxp.com>

dt-bindings: arm: fsl: add imx-se-fw binding doc

This patch introduces the device tree binding documentation for NXP i.MX
Secure Enclave hardware. It specifies the compatible strings and properties
needed for communication between the application core and enclave firmware
via a mailbox interface.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/fsl,imx-se.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/fsl,imx-se.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..fa81adbf9b80d
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/fsl,imx-se.yaml

[ ... ]

> +properties:
> +  compatible:
> +    enum:
> +      - fsl,imx8ulp-se-ele-hsm
> +      - fsl,imx93-se-ele-hsm
> +      - fsl,imx95-se-ele-hsm
[Severity: Low]
Does this compatible string contradict the architectural documentation?

Looking at Documentation/driver-api/firmware/other_interfaces.rst, it
states that i.MX95 secure enclaves will use a single unified compatible
node (fsl,imx95-se) for all enclaves.

By defining fsl,imx95-se-ele-hsm here instead of fsl,imx95-se, could this
create an inconsistency with the documented interface?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260825-imx-se-if-v42-0-2e8efac0bb16@nxp.com?part=2