On 29/09/2025 19:03, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 05:41:10PM +0800, Jingyi Wang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9/29/2025 5:34 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 02:20:54PM +0800, Jingyi Wang wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/25/2025 9:48 AM, Krzysztof Kozłowski wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sept 2025 at 08:37, Jingyi Wang <[email protected]> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Add remote processor PAS loader for Kaanapali CDSP processor, compatible
>>>>>> with earlier SM8550 with minor difference: one more sixth "shutdown-ack"
>>>>>> interrupt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jingyi Wang <[email protected]>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  .../bindings/remoteproc/qcom,sm8550-pas.yaml          | 19 
>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git 
>>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,sm8550-pas.yaml 
>>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,sm8550-pas.yaml
>>>>>> index be9e2a0bc060..031fdf36a66c 100644
>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,sm8550-pas.yaml
>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,sm8550-pas.yaml
>>>>>> @@ -35,6 +35,9 @@ properties:
>>>>>>        - items:
>>>>>>            - const: qcom,sm8750-cdsp-pas
>>>>>>            - const: qcom,sm8650-cdsp-pas
>>>>>> +      - items:
>>>>>> +          - const: qcom,kaanapali-cdsp-pas
>>>>>> +          - const: qcom,sm8550-cdsp-pas
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This time maybe without HTML:
>>>>>
>>>>> This looks wrong. This is not compatible with SM8550.
>>>>
>>>> Could you point out what is the difference from your perspecetive?
>>>> it is the same as SM8550 except for there is one more interrupt,
>>>> which is also described in this patch.
>>>
>>> I'd second Krzysztof here. Your description points out that it is _not_
>>> compatible to SM8550.
>>>
>>
>> Here is the binding for sm8750 cdsp. Fallback to sm8650 but describe the
>> difference in interrupt:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> 
> Interesting. Let's wait for Krzysztof's response then.
> 


Because it is evolution of sm8750, so it did not go back to old design.
from three generations ago. This is compatible with sm8750 or with sm8650.


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Reply via email to