Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: mmc: sdhci-msm: Add ICE phandle

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 16/01/2026 07:50, Neeraj Soni wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 1/15/2026 2:33 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 03:18:47PM +0530, Neeraj Soni wrote:
>>> Starting with sc7280(kodiak), the ICE will have its own device-tree node.
>>> So add the qcom,ice property to reference it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Neeraj Soni <neeraj.soni@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-msm.yaml | 4 ++++
>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-msm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-msm.yaml
>>> index 938be8228d66..8a6a25ceabe1 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-msm.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-msm.yaml
>>> @@ -140,6 +140,10 @@ properties:
>>>      $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
>>>      description: platform specific settings for DLL_CONFIG reg.
>>>  
>>> +  qcom,ice:
>>> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle
>>> +    description: phandle to the Inline Crypto Engine node
>>
>> Description should also say: for what purpose.
>>
>> You either have this phandle or ICE address space on sc7280 and newer.
>> You cannot have both, so your schema should encode it properly.
>>
> Sure. I will update this in next patch.
> 
>> Otherwise you just sent something which already was on the list and it
>> even was reviewed:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/ba3da82d-999b-b040-5230-36e60293e0fd@linaro.org/
>>
>> You even copied the commit msg but did copy the authorship!
>>
> Sure. Thanks for pointing out. I will fix the authorship in next patch.

If you add if:then: cases, the patch will differ, so make it your own.
But sending exactly the same patch with the same commit msg as what is
already on the lists under your own name is not correct.

> 
>> Anyway v3 and v4 were not correct and probably v2 should be used after
>> adjusting it with my comments.
>>
> Okay. As i see your comment in v2 here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/c8eea30f-5ea2-cfc9-273a-3c6e99a316b9@linaro.org/
> 
> i guess what you want is not to drop the entries for clock but rather capture it
> in the "description" of the ICE phandle entry. Is this understanding correct?

Clocks should not be touched, but reg should.


Best regards,
Krzysztof