On 10/15/2022 6:34 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 14/10/2022 18:11, Melody Olvera wrote: >> Add compatibles for scm driver for QDU1000 and QRU1000 platforms. >> >> Signed-off-by: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> .../devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml | 16 ++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml >> index c5b76c9f7ad0..47083f47f109 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml >> @@ -38,6 +38,8 @@ properties: >> - qcom,scm-msm8994 >> - qcom,scm-msm8996 >> - qcom,scm-msm8998 >> + - qcom,scm-qdu1000 >> + - qcom,scm-qru1000 > Why exactly we are no using qdu1000 as fallback? That was the > recommendation in previous discussion. Will use only qdu; I think I misunderstood the outcome of that discussion. > > Patch is still incomplete - you still do no have proper changes in allOf > for the clocks. If you want to say that this SoC does not take any > clocks as input, then they should not be allowed. That is what I'm trying to say; it seems most of our most recent SoCs (sm8*) don't have any clocks associated with the scm. Does it make sense to remove the minItems earlier in the binding, or is there something else that would communicate this in allOf better? Thanks, Melody
