[PATCH] dt-bindings: arm-smmu: Add compatible for Kaanapali SoC

[PATCH] dt-bindings: arm-smmu: Add compatible for Kaanapali SoC

[Jingyi Wang]

Qualcomm Kaanapali SoC includes apps smmu that implements arm,mmu-500,
which is used to translate device-visible virtual addresses to physical
addresses. Add compatible for it.

Signed-off-by: Jingyi Wang <jingyi.wang@oss.qualcomm.com>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml
index 89495f094d52..261c4c699a60 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ properties:
       - description: Qcom SoCs implementing "qcom,smmu-500" and "arm,mmu-500"
         items:
           - enum:
+              - qcom,kaanapali-smmu-500
               - qcom,milos-smmu-500
               - qcom,qcm2290-smmu-500
               - qcom,qcs615-smmu-500

---
base-commit: ae2d20002576d2893ecaff25db3d7ef9190ac0b6
change-id: 20250917-knp-smmu-fdfcedb91bba

Best regards,
-- 
Jingyi Wang <jingyi.wang@oss.qualcomm.com>

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm-smmu: Add compatible for Kaanapali SoC

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 25/09/2025 08:19, Jingyi Wang wrote:
> Qualcomm Kaanapali SoC includes apps smmu that implements arm,mmu-500,
> which is used to translate device-visible virtual addresses to physical
> addresses. Add compatible for it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jingyi Wang <jingyi.wang@oss.qualcomm.com>
> ---

NAK, conflicting patch with Kaanapali, without any reason. Squash the
patches.

This entire split is just huge churn, huge duplication of work and quite
a lot of review put onto the community. You should have coordinated your
work better.

I am disappointed because you just don't think about the reviewing
process, about what maintainers should do with that. You just send what
was told you to send.

Explain to us - why do we want to have two 99% same patches sent the
SAME DAY, from the same company, sent in completely separate patchsets
so any simplified review will not be possible, and do same work - review
and applying - twice, instead of having only one?

Why maintainers should accept this?

Best regards,
Krzysztof