Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: pci: qcom,hawi-pcie: Add Maili PCIe compatible

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 07/07/2026 06:53, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2026 at 07:35:52PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 06/07/2026 18:36, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 06, 2026 at 08:46:41AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 05:38:40PM +0530, Vivek Pernamitta wrote:
>>>>> Add qcom,maili-pcie as a compatible string that falls back to
>>>>> qcom,hawi-pcie, as the Maili SoC reuses the Hawi PCIe controller IP.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Maili SoC is a derivative of Hawi and shares the same PCIe
>>>>> controller architecture, allowing reuse of the existing Hawi PCIe
>>>>> DT bindings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Pernamitta <vivek.pernamitta@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Dependencies:
>>>>> - PCI: qcom: Add PCIe support for upcoming Hawi SoC
>>>>>   https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260625-hawi-pcie-v4-0-1a578603cd86@oss.qualcomm.com/
>>>>
>>>> Squash the patches then.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But these are two independent SoC additions, isn't it?
>>
>> It's adding a single compatible, no? If a patch adding a single
>> compatible cannot be done without multi-patchset dependencies making
>> testing by tooling impossible, then probably that work should not be
>> sent separately or even as separate patch. And I am not saying anything
>> new because half a year ago (around Kaanapali and Glymur) I voiced
>> strong opinion about that.
>>
>> But really, you do not need to add two compatibles in two separate patches.
>>
> 
> Ok then. I'll squash this patch with Hawi patch which already got applied.

Applied? That's not what I had in mind. This mentions external
dependency, not something which was applied. Should be squashed there.

Best regards,
Krzysztof