From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-43100.protonmail.ch (mail-43100.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63AFA451999; Fri, 31 Jul 2026 16:41:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.70.43.100 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785516076; cv=none; b=J+qH3V6IvcvWLOx4Gc4QdshqjojgfaP7qJuMQCY5jo2MaKvFL76MyV3nrspBSMsm3pl5YXD+r5TlkiVJNYUtFfsCm3iiDdNpGf1NWqE6lC9ZlhiHD1tjegKPhkthp+2A588PAcXilDzYqyB6Z+h/U5rOqefrJt22y7EhUfGlt2g= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785516076; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fQWT4wQ+tPH+nUwhJFZpI82T4FocCSDu4zSo4LpkarM=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=tB9ITGRRwxJMY/uHMOJ876IPGTKkPgskxVBcVCAPdBzTCu3JxL8ZiHKZAXG0lX4EQtmOdki4TafDz9U+KZkrMuZ4VeCgFWyFROoCrtdVu1bZ6kYJ/FYSPsRMj6M3ksPxBrbagAvcpaV7w4Ozxw4RidxgI8hLnyiwRimSGYaJLDY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=proton.me; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=proton.me; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=proton.me header.i=@proton.me header.b=ZNOVTeOM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.70.43.100 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=proton.me Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=proton.me Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=proton.me header.i=@proton.me header.b="ZNOVTeOM" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=proton.me; s=qih6ar3fxbernjpkjufk7ffplu.protonmail; t=1785516064; x=1785775264; bh=fQWT4wQ+tPH+nUwhJFZpI82T4FocCSDu4zSo4LpkarM=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=ZNOVTeOM7G/uHb/Q7+g7UQXVga22jqickek6pw2vYi4/fiMWO83w91RCCHA8Q6kRZ 9uvbJrcP72c2UD9TpdzeWcnl8uJFqZvBEL85P+cxkAWJbUcZTVKptK/q3dEzPG2cS0 Wwjasn2N/4swE/Ej+Ba3LfJztTVOlXG1L2qtgt8u/sKNuehxWFOBj2+6E6OpSUBiel 10AvShbaOXaTkAiQBEymXghXQooMm6is6y3u6FxdCCKE1dHbi3jEwvc6XvBWs9t8MH LlMG/QPvljFpK2Vvi5hRvAjlAFRdl9rUT8INmzETbDaTyCQhNKgXcuRmwIhyvtedYN xaRQA3EQHeJaA== Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2026 16:40:58 +0000 To: Konrad Dybcio , Krzysztof Kozlowski From: Esteban Urrutia Cc: Bjorn Andersson , Konrad Dybcio , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Heikki Krogerus , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, phone-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: soc: qcom: qcom,pmic-glink: Add compatible string for SM8475 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <2ace2703-79cb-4046-a2b3-8fdeb9b2c99e@oss.qualcomm.com> References: <20260731-sm8475-pmic-glink-v2-0-28c04928ef22@proton.me> <20260731-sm8475-pmic-glink-v2-1-28c04928ef22@proton.me> <20260731-savvy-piquant-chowchow-f516f2@quoll> <9718d7b8-7303-47a2-9d75-58bbde6385e9@proton.me> <6fc5165c-95b5-475a-a0a6-e1d7b9721222@proton.me> <2ace2703-79cb-4046-a2b3-8fdeb9b2c99e@oss.qualcomm.com> Feedback-ID: 147889766:user:proton X-Pm-Message-ID: e5070080d1a68ba6d5edd313b8cb2541cf38cab7 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 7/31/26 12:28 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > Somehow I confabulated the generic compatible being present in the > driver... I was trying to explain that >=20 > And yes I didn't notice the 8350/8450 difference. But anyway, the > resolution will be one of: >=20 > // 8450 is fully compatible > "qcom,sm8475-pmic-glink", > "qcom,sm8450-pmic-glink", > "qcom,pmic-glink" >=20 > or >=20 > // 8475 is special > "qcom,sm8475-pmic-glink", > "qcom,pmic-glink" >=20 > depending on what you believe is more correct. I think the first > one fits better. Yes, I agree the first case fits better, but I believe there is also a possible third case: // 8550 is fully compatible "qcom,sm8475-pmic-glink", "qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink", "qcom,pmic-glink" The reason why I believe this is that I've found SM8475 to include some elements such as eUSB or PHY sequences found in more recent SoCs such as SM8550. I guess that's the case since SM8475 is a respin, but I'm not sure. Regards, Esteban