On 20/07/2022 17:07, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 12:46 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 20/07/2022 09:38, Yunlong Jia wrote: >>> The difference between sku6 and sku4 is that there is no esim >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Jia <yunlong.jia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> >>> 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 4dd18fbf20b6..aebeefdab27f 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >>> @@ -410,6 +410,7 @@ properties: >>> - description: Google Pazquel with LTE and Parade (newest rev) >>> items: >>> - const: google,pazquel-sku4 >>> + - const: google,pazquel-sku6 >> >> This looks wrong, did you test it? > > Why do you think it's wrong? This patch is adding a second compatible > string to an existing dts. Because it was sent after a patch adding sku6+sku4+sc7180, but the order here is different. However for some reason it was not part of a patchset which makes it total mess and even less possible to understand. > The only difference between SKU4 and SKU6 > is that one of them has the eSIM component stuffed and the other one > doesn't. This need not be represented in the dts since the eSIM is > automatically detected, but it was still stuffed as a SKU strapping so > the factory could tell whether the missing eSIM was an error or > intentional. > > This is just like the SKU0 vs. SKU2 difference. > > Other than the fact that this should be together in one series with > the dts patch: > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> I don't agree. With last DTS patch this is a wrong binding (or wrong DTS) therefore I must NAK it. Please do not upstream stuff in some different way, like sending bindings and DTS separate. Best regards, Krzysztof
