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 893AF4746AE for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2026 09:14:04 +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=1790932445; cv=none; b=PhXiM1sNMxpKHBpF/aRSQClRSXhnfwzBb7ixJ9PS42AppqIUq86OHSwiiLhCY5GkK299qHw8lUL7SVTgNPC1d/fv1OGBTVN33Rm1v4eBzVfKXQCz7NXjl+3dvqDmHr2ODLwoLdCQ4Ymjcj/Wkf+Af7HuvHGl1dxoJL5V4n0NGTk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790932445; c=relaxed/simple; bh=D/UgWNYe2Ycdf+QHW5aqo+pXWMngQWmgGmqk4ed5B64=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=HVRp61cQ0nBE6dYFEHjWs91k8m0A3f+DJ3L/pnKTR+gUQte/blYOHC8L35iBbTwuY/C0zx9XDXV7GrYFsEilLNXyL5FcDCXm/3JK9gzSRec4jsDPbJgPl4YbK1FGWEnEQoG5c6WmSt+IsCPR+B1FO6axVYaGssUyd1Z/US8KEjw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=RssSonna; 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="RssSonna" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 304341F00893; Fri, 2 Oct 2026 09:14:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790932444; bh=ZR+EEBm9VhGEQCzK/YI+TKn7quHvelzvczoqhCuWxlo=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=RssSonnai1p0znQfqbGgMuMvW/lE4i8NOdSzGrAS/KQ5fcOmZNKpEF2ahOWq50Ray Z9Not8dtb3I4x7uSx3faN4WSw/GD55s/w9GK8HXiWbSE9+QiMzRn1Qzlul2VTcWgZC zET4Kk3gqj5q5O3a01FKcnBUufRCSsUxOWgI3rPapnuehhm4o4nJxxqfUSA1AeSAwZ ohyFb2Xy5Fgb/xA5lw0iHrG5zNY8BMSbvVqkvjNvDCMvePdlUEwalx8BnXu49bsamG er9qs5rXr0JNF7NpBeHIr+4/HmthWJSgdOO2/+GfWn6KxDg/n42yzS5GIEdGrpucrH RnQVWUTQhwENQ== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm632: Correct power domains Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: =?utf-8?b?QmFybmFiw6FzIEN6w6ltw6Fu?= Cc: conor+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, robh@kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20261002-sdm632-rpmpd-v3-7-95c47d0f26cf@mainlining.org> References: <20261002-sdm632-rpmpd-v3-0-95c47d0f26cf@mainlining.org> <20261002-sdm632-rpmpd-v3-7-95c47d0f26cf@mainlining.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2026 09:14:03 +0000 Message-Id: <20261002091404.304341F00893@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 2 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [High] remoteproc: qcom_q6v5_mss: probe failure due to missing mss-supply= for MSM8953 - [Medium] dt-bindings: power: qcom-rpmpd: RPMPD_VDDMD conflicts with RPMPD= _VDDMX_VFL -- commit f5ae81644790ad18298d9d35e487c425be535c4d Author: Barnab=C3=A1s Cz=C3=A9m=C3=A1n arm64: dts: qcom: sdm632: Correct power domains This commit adds power domain overrides for the SDM632. It specifies=20 domains for various subsystems, acknowledging that SDM632 uses different=20 power domains from the MSM8953 it is based on. > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm632.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/q= com/sdm632.dtsi > index 40d86d91b67fa..5a677da5afb01 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm632.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm632.dtsi [ ... ] > @@ -87,3 +87,37 @@ opp-725000000 { [ ... ] > +&mpss { > + compatible =3D "qcom,sdm632-mss-pil"; > + power-domains =3D <&rpmpd RPMPD_VDDCX>, > + <&rpmpd RPMPD_VDDMX>, > + <&rpmpd RPMPD_VDDMD>; [Severity: Medium] Does the use of RPMPD_VDDMD here conflict with RPMPD_VDDMX_VFL? In include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h, both are defined as 5: #define RPMPD_VDDMX_VFL 5 #define RPMPD_VDDMD 5 A SoC that has both domains would have a conflict in the provider array, or a user specifying RPMPD_VDDMD on a board that has VDDMX_VFL will scale the wrong regulator. [Severity: High] While overriding the domains for SDM632 here, does this leave MSM8953 broke= n? The mss power domain was removed in arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953.dtsi at the mpss node, but the required mss-supply was not added. The MSS driver now requires an mss-supply active regulator for MSM8953. Consequently, the driver falls back to a dummy regulator. When q6v5_regulator_enable() attempts to set 1.05V, regulator_set_voltage() returns -EINVAL on the dummy regulator, causing a fatal start failure. Furthermore, this breaks backward compatibility for older MSM8953 DTBs because the MSM8953_VDDMD power domain was removed from the msm8953_rpmpds[] provider array, causing genpd attach to fail. > + power-domain-names =3D "cx", > + "mx", > + "mss"; > +}; [ ... ] --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261002-sdm632-rpm= pd-v3-0-95c47d0f26cf@mainlining.org?part=3D7