Re: [PATCH 4/6] dt-bindings: remoteproc: qcom,pas: Document pas for Kaanapali SoCCP

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 14/10/2025 07:30, Jingyi Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/14/2025 12:47 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 14/10/2025 06:28, Jingyi Wang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/9/2025 6:27 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 25/09/2025 08:37, Jingyi Wang wrote:
>>>>> +
>>>>> +  glink-edge:
>>>>> +    $ref: /schemas/remoteproc/qcom,glink-edge.yaml#
>>>>> +    unevaluatedProperties: false
>>>>> +    description: |
>>>>
>>>> Drop |
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Will fix
>>>
>>>>> +      Qualcomm G-Link subnode which represents communication edge, channels
>>>>> +      and devices related to the Remoteproc.
>>>>> +
>>>>> +required:
>>>>> +  - compatible
>>>>> +  - reg
>>>>> +  - memory-region
>>>>> +  - clocks
>>>>> +  - clock-names
>>>>> +  - interrupts
>>>>> +  - interrupt-names
>>>>> +  - qcom,smem-states
>>>>> +  - qcom,smem-state-names
>>>>> +
>>>>> +unevaluatedProperties: false
>>>>
>>>> That's wrong in this context. But if you add missing (and corrected
>>>> pas-common) then it would make sense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry I didn't get this point, could you make it more clear?
>>>
>>> The property for Kaanapali SoCCP doesn't follow qcom,pas-common.yaml
>>> (the interrupts are different) so it was not included here, like
>>> "qcom,qcs404-cdsp-pil.yaml"
>>
>>
>> It should follow. We want the common properties to be common. You cannot
>> have new binding not using common properties, because you duplicate
>> property definition.
>>
>>>
>>> So I think just adding the missing "power-domains","power-domain-names"
>>> under "required" will be okay?
>>
>>
>> You need to adjust pas-common.yaml, all other bindings and this binding
>> so there is a common part.
>>
> 
> Do you mean remove the interrupts property from the pas-common.yaml then
> define it in separate bindings?

They should rather stay in pas-common and be extended to oneOf for two
versions - old and Kaanapali one.

Best regards,
Krzysztof