Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] remoteproc: imx_rproc: Support i.MX95

[Peng Fan <peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>]

On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 08:23:42AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 at 21:08, Peng Fan <peng.fan@oss.nxp.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 11:06:04AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>> >On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 04:20:34PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 08:48:43AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>> >> >On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 11:52:05AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
>> >> >> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] remoteproc: imx_rproc: Support i.MX95
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> [...]
>> >> >> > New warnings running 'make CHECK_DTBS=y for
>> >> >> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/' for 20250710-imx95-rproc-1-v4-0-
>> >> >> > a7123e857dfb@nxp.com:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx95-tqma9596sa-mb-smarc-2.dtb:
>> >> >> > scmi (arm,scmi): Unevaluated properties are not allowed
>> >> >> > ('protocol@80', 'protocol@81', 'protocol@82', 'protocol@84' were
>> >> >> > unexpected)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Same as replied in v3.
>> >> >> This is because [1] is still not picked, not because of my patchset.
>> >> >
>> >> >I won't move on this patchset until this is resolved.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Not understand why hold on this patchset. I suppose you may not
>> >> understand what the error means. The warning is totally irrelevant
>> >> to this patchset, there is no dependency.
>> >>
>> >> Others added a property to arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx95-tqma9596sa.dtsi
>> >> &scmi_bbm {
>> >>         linux,code = <KEY_POWER>;
>> >> };
>> >> But this "linux,code" property not landed(missed to be picked up) to DT binding.
>> >>
>> >> This patchset does not touch scmi_bbm. I could help address the warning
>> >> in the other patch, but I do not see why "linux,code" under scmi_bbm node
>> >> could block this patchset.
>> >>
>> >> Please help clarify if you still think to hold on this patchset.
>> >>
>> >> BTW: with [1] "remoteproc: imx_rproc: skip clock enable when M-core is managed by the SCU"
>> >> merged in Ulf's tree, there is a minor conflict with patch 2. Please suggest
>> >> what I should do with this patchset.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I was afraid of that.  The best way forward with this work is to wait for the
>> >"linux,code" property to be picked up by Sudeep.  I suggest you make sure that
>> >he, or anyone else, picks it up for the next merge window.  If that happens
>>
>>
>> I respect you as maintainer, but there is no reason to block this patch
>> because of "linux,code" property. It is totally irrelevant.
>>
>> Even if I help to resubmit that "linux,code" patch, there is no chance to
>> land into 6.17-rc1, both Sudeep and Shawn sent their PR to arm-soc earlier
>> before your comments. You could raise in V3.. which there was time left.
>>
>
>I don't know what you mean by V3.

Patch version 3 got same CHECK_DTBS warning.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250626035602.GA13855@nxa18884-linux/

Anyway, it doesn't matter now.

Thanks,
Peng