On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 11:01:16AM +0530, Yuvaraj Ranganathan wrote: > On 2/28/2025 5:56 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 11:38:16PM +0530, Yuvaraj Ranganathan wrote: > >> The initial QCE node change is reverted by the following patch > > > > s/is/was/ > > > >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250128115333.95021-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx/ > >> because of the build warning, > >> > >> sa8775p-ride.dtb: crypto@1dfa000: compatible: 'oneOf' conditional failed, one must be fixed: > >> ... > >> 'qcom,sa8775p-qce' is not one of ['qcom,ipq4019-qce', 'qcom,sm8150-qce'] > >> > >> Add the QCE node back that fix the warnings. > >> > > > > Are you saying that adding this node back will fix the warning? > > > > I'd expect that you would say something like "The changes to the > > Devicetree binding has accepted, so add the node back". > > > > Regards, > > Bjorn > > > >> Signed-off-by: Yuvaraj Ranganathan <quic_yrangana@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sa8775p.dtsi | 12 ++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sa8775p.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sa8775p.dtsi > >> index 23049cc58896..b0d77b109305 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sa8775p.dtsi > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sa8775p.dtsi > >> @@ -2418,6 +2418,18 @@ cryptobam: dma-controller@1dc4000 { > >> <&apps_smmu 0x481 0x00>; > >> }; > >> > >> + crypto: crypto@1dfa000 { > >> + compatible = "qcom,sa8775p-qce", "qcom,sm8150-qce", "qcom,qce"; > >> + reg = <0x0 0x01dfa000 0x0 0x6000>; > >> + dmas = <&cryptobam 4>, <&cryptobam 5>; > >> + dma-names = "rx", "tx"; > >> + iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x480 0x00>, > >> + <&apps_smmu 0x481 0x00>; > >> + interconnects = <&aggre2_noc MASTER_CRYPTO_CORE0 0 > >> + &mc_virt SLAVE_EBI1 0>; > >> + interconnect-names = "memory"; > >> + }; > >> + > >> stm: stm@4002000 { > >> compatible = "arm,coresight-stm", "arm,primecell"; > >> reg = <0x0 0x4002000 0x0 0x1000>, > >> -- > >> 2.34.1 > >> > > DeviceTree bindings were accepted but the comptabile string does not > properly bind to it. Hence, adding the correct binding string in the > compatible has resolved the issue. > Please then write that in the commit message. That said, what did you base this patch on? While I have picked Krzysztof's two reverts in my local tree, I have not yet published them. So your patch is not even based on v6.14-rc1, which now is 4 weeks old. Patches sent upstream should be built and tested on a suitable upstream branch! Regards, Bjorn
