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?
Thanks,
Jingyi
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
