Re: [PATCH v50 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:
- [Medium] Discrepancy in the documented compatible string for i.MX95.
--

commit fadaa2081933a0613e667a53214f0c48c9bcd198
Author: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@nxp.com>

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

This commit adds the device tree binding documentation for the NXP
i.MX Hardware Secure Enclave(s) EdgeLock Enclave. It defines the
communication interface using messaging units and specifies compatible
strings for i.MX8ULP, i.MX93, and i.MX95.

> 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: Medium]
Is there a discrepancy with the compatible string intended for i.MX95?

The binding here specifies fsl,imx95-se-ele-hsm, but in patch 1/7
of this series, the firmware documentation in 
Documentation/driver-api/firmware/other_interfaces.rst states that it
is using the single compatible node fsl,imx95-se.

Could this mismatch cause confusion for device tree authors and driver
maintainers regarding which compatible string is actually expected?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260912-imx-se-if-v50-0-80834ef510d3@nxp.com?part=2