Re: [PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: sram: qcom,imem: Document Qualcomm IPQ SoC's IMEM compatibles

[Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 7/2/2025 4:29 PM, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
>
> On 7/2/2025 4:18 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 02/07/2025 12:46, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2025 3:49 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 02/07/2025 12:17, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
>>>>> IMEM is present in the Qualcomm's IPQ SoCs as well. Document the 
>>>>> same.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy 
>>>>> <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml | 6 ++++++
>>>>>    1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>> Where is the changelog? This is not a v1.
>>> This is the v1. The series[1] I pointed out describes only for the
>>> IPQ5424 SoC. Since I have added few more SoCs, thought v1 is the
>>> appropriate numbering.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20250610-wdt_reset_reason-v5-0-2d2835160ab5@oss.qualcomm.com/ 
>>>
>> But IPQ5424 is already there, so you reworked that patch.
> Okay, so this should be V6?


Let me drop the IPQ5424 support and send the V2. I hope that is fine.


>>
>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml 
>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
>>>>> index 
>>>>> 72d35e30c439ccf4901d937f838fe7c7a81f33b1..48e2f332e0e9fc9fa4147fa12d9c6c70a77fafda 
>>>>> 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
>>>>> @@ -18,6 +18,12 @@ properties:
>>>>>        items:
>>>>>          - enum:
>>>>>              - qcom,apq8064-imem
>>>>> +          - qcom,ipq8074-imem
>>>>> +          - qcom,ipq6018-imem
>>>>> +          - qcom,ipq5018-imem
>>>>> +          - qcom,ipq9574-imem
>>>>> +          - qcom,ipq5332-imem
>>>>> +          - qcom,ipq5424-imem
>>>> Random order, no, follow existing style. This applies for every qcom
>>>> binding and you received such feedbacks in the past.
>>> Apologies — I arranged them based on the evolutionary order of SoCs.
>> Where is such ordering documented? How is it expressed in your internal
>> guideline for example?
> I made the mistake unintentionally and apologized for the same!
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof