Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: arm-smmu: qcom: add compatible for IPQ9650 SoC

On 04/08/2026 08:43, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
> 
> On 8/3/2026 2:54 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 11:01:26AM +0530, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
>>> Add the compatible string for the APPS SMMU present on the Qualcomm
>>> IPQ9650 SoC.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> - Add the proper constraints - no clocks needed for IPQ9650
>>> - Link to v1: https://patch.msgid.link/[email protected]
>>>
>>> To: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
>>> To: Robin Murphy <[email protected]>
>>> To: "Joerg Roedel (AMD)" <[email protected]>
>>> To: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
>>> To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>>> To: Conor Dooley <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: [email protected]
>>> Cc: [email protected]
>>> Cc: [email protected]
>>> Cc: [email protected]
>>> ---
>>>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml | 2 ++
>>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml
>>> index f2188942f877..ffa33b7f4a96 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml
>>> @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ properties:
>>>                 - qcom,eliza-smmu-500
>>>                 - qcom,glymur-smmu-500
>>>                 - qcom,hawi-smmu-500
>>> +              - qcom,ipq9650-smmu-500
>>>                 - qcom,kaanapali-smmu-500
>>>                 - qcom,maili-smmu-500
>>>                 - qcom,milos-smmu-500
>>> @@ -625,6 +626,7 @@ allOf:
>>>                   - qcom,eliza-smmu-500
>>>                   - qcom,glymur-smmu-500
>>>                   - qcom,hawi-smmu-500
>>> +                - qcom,ipq9650-smmu-500
>> This will disallow clocks also for the Adreno one, so confirm that it
>> also does not have clocks.
> 
> IPQ9650 doesn't have Adreno IP. Please let me know if I need to explicit 
> about it in the commit message or this is fine?

Would be useful but anyway

Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>


Best regards,
Krzysztof