Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add bindings for HSM core on TI K3 SoCs

["Padhi, Beleswar" <b-padhi@ti.com>]

On 1/5/2026 12:40 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 05/01/2026 06:56, Padhi, Beleswar wrote:
>> On 1/2/2026 6:00 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 10:21:00PM +0530, Beleswar Padhi wrote:
>>>> Some of the TI K3 family of SoCs have a HSM (High Security Module) M4F
>>>> core in the Wakeup Voltage Domain which could be used to run secure
>>>> services like Authentication. Add the device tree bindings document for
>>>> this HSM M4F core.
>>>>
>>>> The added example illustrates the DT node for the HSM core present on K3
>>>> J722S SoC.
>>> A nit, subject: drop second/last, redundant "bindings for". The
>>> "dt-bindings" prefix is already stating that these are bindings.
>>> See also:
>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.17-rc3/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst#L18
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Beleswar Padhi <b-padhi@ti.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-hsm-rproc.yaml  | 79 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>    1 file changed, 79 insertions(+)
>>>>    create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-hsm-rproc.yaml
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-hsm-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-hsm-rproc.yaml
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000000000..f61e4046843af
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-hsm-rproc.yaml
>>> Filename must match the compatible. Are you sure you are following
>>> internal TI guidelines? Did you read them?
>>
>> Will address all comments in v2. Most of these issues exist with other
>> upstreamed TI dt-bindings as well, will send out a separate cleanup
>> series for those too.
> This was not my question. Are you following carefully internal TI
> guidelines to avoid common mistakes?


Yes I did. All of the internal guidelines & tests passed with my patches
and only then I submitted this series. That guideline does not have
this check which is why it didn't complain for the older bindings too,
which don't follow this rule:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti%2Ck3-m4f-rproc.yaml
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti%2Ck3-dsp-rproc.yaml
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti%2Ck3-r5f-rproc.yaml