From: Umang Chheda <umang.chheda@oss.qualcomm.com>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
umang.chheda@oss.qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Add monaco-evk-ac support
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2026 16:42:11 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <04c0949e-269c-4faa-8a7f-cef902d54fc1@oss.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4d32e86f-353c-4951-89ca-46aa49d60f76@oss.qualcomm.com>
On 4/4/2026 4:15 PM, Umang Chheda wrote:
>
>
> On 4/4/2026 1:58 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 03, 2026 at 04:14:28PM +0530, Umang Chheda wrote:
>>> Hello Dmitry,
>>>
>>> On 4/1/2026 5:06 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Apr 01, 2026 at 12:14:42AM +0530, Umang Chheda wrote:
>>>>> Introduce bindings for the monaco-evk-ac IoT board, which is
>>>>> based on the monaco-ac (QCS8300-AC) SoC variant.
>>>>
>>>> If it is a different SoC SKU, should it be reflected in the SoC compat
>>>> strings?
>>>
>>> Monaco‑AC does not introduce any S/W differences compared to Monaco SoC
>>> -- All IP blocks and bindings remain identical from S/W PoV, Hence
>>> haven't included the SoC SKU in the SoC compat strings.
>>>
>>> Hope this is okay ? Your view on this ?
>>
>> You are descibing -AC as the main difference between the kits, but then
>> you say that -AC doesn't bring new software interfaces. What is the
>> difference then between monako-evk and the -ac variant?
>>
>
> The major difference between monaco-evk and monaco-ac-evk boards is that
> of power grid. monaco-evk requires 4 PMICs (2x PM8650AU + Maxim MAX20018
> + TI TPS6594) to support higher power requirements of monaco-AA variant
> of SoC which supports upto 40 TOPS of NPU - whereas this board
> "monaco-ac-evk" supports 20 TOPS of NPU and has lesser power
> requirements hence 2 PMICs suffice the power requirements (2x PM8650AU).
>
>
>> Also, from the naming point of view, it is monako-ac-evk, not the other
>> way.
>
> Ack, will change this to "monaco-ac-evk" in the next version.
>
> Also, should I change DT name "monaco-ac-evk.dts" instead of current
> "monaco-evk-ac-sku" ?
Corrected Typo - I meant change DT name to "monaco-ac-evk.dts" and drop
"sku" from the DT name as well ?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Umang Chheda <umang.chheda@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 1 +
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>>>>> index ca880c105f3b..c76365a89687 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>>>>> @@ -918,6 +918,7 @@ properties:
>>>>> - enum:
>>>>> - arduino,monza
>>>>> - qcom,monaco-evk
>>>>> + - qcom,monaco-evk-ac
>>>>> - qcom,qcs8300-ride
>>>>> - const: qcom,qcs8300
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.34.1
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Umang
>>
>
> Thanks,
> Umang
Thanks,
Umang
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-04 11:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-31 18:44 [PATCH v2 0/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Introduce support for Monaco-ac-sku Evaluation Kit Umang Chheda
2026-03-31 18:44 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Add monaco-evk-ac support Umang Chheda
2026-04-01 7:25 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-04-01 11:36 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2026-04-03 10:44 ` Umang Chheda
2026-04-03 20:28 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2026-04-04 10:45 ` Umang Chheda
2026-04-04 11:12 ` Umang Chheda [this message]
2026-04-04 19:39 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2026-04-06 11:58 ` Umang Chheda
2026-03-31 18:44 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: monaco: Add monaco-ac EVK board Umang Chheda
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=04c0949e-269c-4faa-8a7f-cef902d54fc1@oss.qualcomm.com \
--to=umang.chheda@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=andersson@kernel.org \
--cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=konradybcio@kernel.org \
--cc=krzk+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=richardcochran@gmail.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox