[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9febbe8e-3060-47cd-a1e8-5ee2b4de952b@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2026 21:57:18 +0530
From: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@....qualcomm.com>
To: Ananthu C V <ananthu.cv@....qualcomm.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: sram: qcom,imem: Document glymur as
compatible
On 1/23/2026 3:46 PM, Ananthu C V wrote:
> Add compatible for Qualcomm's glymur IMEM.
Shouldn't we use "mmio-sram" binding? Please note, starting from
"kaanapali", IMEM is described as "mmio-sram". If we need to stick with
this binding, please describe the same on why so?
>
> Signed-off-by: Ananthu C V <ananthu.cv@....qualcomm.com>
> ---
> V1->V2 alphabetically sorted the placement of glymur in the list
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
> index 6a627c57ae2f..5a4a2868388e 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ properties:
> items:
> - enum:
> - qcom,apq8064-imem
> + - qcom,glymur-imem
> - qcom,ipq5424-imem
> - qcom,msm8226-imem
> - qcom,msm8974-imem
Powered by blists - more mailing lists