Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: soc: qcom: Add qcom,kaanapali-imem compatible

[Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 11/7/2025 1:54 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 03:58:27PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 11/4/25 3:52 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 04/11/2025 15:38, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> On 11/4/25 3:37 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 04/11/2025 15:35, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/4/25 3:26 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>> This I got, but nothing here explains why you need generic compatible.
>>>>>>> To re-iterate: there was no generic compatible before, now there is.
>>>>>>> Writing bindings and numerous reviews from DT maintainers ask not to use
>>>>>>> generic compatibles.
>>>>>> OK so let's not worry about a generic compatible. IMEM exists since
>>>>>> MSM8974 and it only had major hw updates with SM8550. They don't
>>>>>> impact the software interface though, so qcom,msm8974-imem is OK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's a separate control/status register address space for each
>>>>>> instance of this IP (usually far apart from the actual SRAM pool),
>>>>>> which Linux doesn't have to care about.
>>>>> Just use qcom,kaanapali-imem - that's the first device here without syscons.
>>>> So we don't want to move the existing ones over?
>>> This was never discussed and this patch did not do it. You cannot move
>>> them, that's ABI.
>> I see, I implicitly assumed this would be a sweeping change.
>>
>> So should the Kaanapali submitters simply send a version of this
>> patch with:
>>
>> - oneOf:
>>    - const: qcom,kaanapali-imem
>>    - items:
>>      # existing big list
>>
>> ?
> We have 33 cases of "this is just a generic Qualcomm IMEM block", could
> we just make it "qcom,imem" until there's actually a sign that it's not
> a platform-independent block?


Any conclusion / further feedback on this would be helpful to move 
things forward. Thanks in advance.


>
> Regards,
> Bjorn
>
>> I'm not a huge fan of using kaanapali as the fallback-going-forward
>> since it's literally the newest platform on the shelves (or perhaps
>> not even on the shelves yet..) so it's going to look funny when
>> someone comes up with support for another 2013 soc.. but perhaps
>> that's just how things are supposed to be
>>
>> Konrad