On 19/12/2023 10:45, Aiqun Yu (Maria) wrote: >>> + - items: >>> + - enum: >>> + - qcom,qcs8550-aim300-aiot >>> + - const: qcom,qcs8550-aim300 >>> + - const: qcom,qcs8550 > Need to add below line here, right? > + - const: qcom,sm8550 Yes. >> >> Missing compatible. Please read previous discussions. > The previous comments was missed. Just double confirm here for > "fallback" meaning here. > > Could you pls also double confirm for my understandings for the > compatible rules? Compatible rules were expressed in Devicetree specification and also writing-bindings document. > As long as sm8550 was designed "hardware compatible"(pin-to-pin > compatible) and "software firmware compatible"(firmware also support > sm8550) to qcs8550, it is request to add compatible sm8550 to current > compatible sequence like: board/SOM/soc/base soc. I understood before that firmware is not compatible. Are there any changes now? The understanding was that your new SoC is stripped down SM8550, thus you will be using almost all of the SM8550 DTSI. If you use all of device nodes, the devices are compatible, aren't they? If they are compatible, then the writing-bindings document asks you to do add specific compatible. Please reach internally within Qualcomm for some initial guidance how DTS and DTSI looks like, so reviewers on mailing list won't need to explain it. This week it is third comment like this on mailing lists for three different patchsets. It is great that you send code upstream. Big companies however are expected to do some internal work first, instead of relying on the community. > > Note that, we don't really have hardware like "sm8550 inside aim300". I really don't know what do you have and I did not find any explanation of QCS8550 in this commit msg which brings new compatible. Best regards, Krzysztof
