Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: qcom,sm8550-pas: Make SDX75, Hawi and Maili MPSS fallback to SM8650

Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> Tue, 4 Aug 2026 10:41:19 +0200

Newsgroups	org.kernel.vger.linux-arm-msm,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-remoteproc
Message-ID	<20260804-acoustic-military-coua-cb0caf@quoll>

On Mon, Aug 03, 2026 at 11:30:20PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> SDX75, Hawi and Maili MPSS are compatible with the SM8650 MPSS as
> they share the same set of interrupts, memory regions and power domains.
> Rather than describing them as standalone compatibles, model them as
> fallbacks to qcom,sm8650-mpss-pas.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <[email protected]>
> ---
>  .../bindings/remoteproc/qcom,sm8550-pas.yaml  | 29 +++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,sm8550-pas.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,sm8550-pas.yaml
> index a062188861ff..f722c55aadf4 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,sm8550-pas.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,sm8550-pas.yaml
> @@ -18,9 +18,6 @@ properties:
>      oneOf:
>        - enum:
>            - qcom,eliza-cdsp-pas
> -          - qcom,hawi-mpss-pas

There is no known user of this.

Why do we even document this?

This is unfortunately one more example why I should accept early
bindings without users.

Best regards,
Krzysztof