On 14/10/2025 07:30, Jingyi Wang wrote: > > > On 10/14/2025 12:47 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 14/10/2025 06:28, Jingyi Wang wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 10/9/2025 6:27 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 25/09/2025 08:37, Jingyi Wang wrote: >>>>> + >>>>> + glink-edge: >>>>> + $ref: /schemas/remoteproc/qcom,glink-edge.yaml# >>>>> + unevaluatedProperties: false >>>>> + description: | >>>> >>>> Drop | >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Will fix >>> >>>>> + Qualcomm G-Link subnode which represents communication edge, >>>>> channels >>>>> + and devices related to the Remoteproc. >>>>> + >>>>> +required: >>>>> + - compatible >>>>> + - reg >>>>> + - memory-region >>>>> + - clocks >>>>> + - clock-names >>>>> + - interrupts >>>>> + - interrupt-names >>>>> + - qcom,smem-states >>>>> + - qcom,smem-state-names >>>>> + >>>>> +unevaluatedProperties: false >>>> >>>> That's wrong in this context. But if you add missing (and corrected >>>> pas-common) then it would make sense. >>>> >>> >>> Sorry I didn't get this point, could you make it more clear? >>> >>> The property for Kaanapali SoCCP doesn't follow qcom,pas-common.yaml >>> (the interrupts are different) so it was not included here, like >>> "qcom,qcs404-cdsp-pil.yaml" >> >> >> It should follow. We want the common properties to be common. You cannot >> have new binding not using common properties, because you duplicate >> property definition. >> >>> >>> So I think just adding the missing "power-domains","power-domain-names" >>> under "required" will be okay? >> >> >> You need to adjust pas-common.yaml, all other bindings and this binding >> so there is a common part. >> > > Do you mean remove the interrupts property from the pas-common.yaml then > define it in separate bindings?
They should rather stay in pas-common and be extended to oneOf for two versions - old and Kaanapali one. Best regards, Krzysztof
