Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Add AYN QCS8550 Devices

[Aaron Kling]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 2:51 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2026 at 09:05:18PM -0500, Aaron Kling wrote:
> > Namely:
> > * Odin 2
> > * Odin 2 Mini
> > * Odin 2 Portal
> > * Thor
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Aaron Kling <webgeek1234@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 9 +++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> > index d054a8f5632d853509b7cd37f07f02473cf6bf71..ee68963c30eae10fd3b3a5e21bda63ab941893fa 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> > @@ -1075,6 +1075,15 @@ properties:
> >            - const: qcom,qcs8550
> >            - const: qcom,sm8550
> >
> > +      - items:
> > +          - enum:
> > +              - ayntec,odin2
> > +              - ayntec,odin2mini
> > +              - ayntec,odin2portal
> > +              - ayntec,thor
>
> I already commented on vendor prefix patch, that you incorrectly moved
> it out from this set. This only stalls your patchsets, because none of
> the trees will have it thus none will pass any checks.

You mean the checks that passed just fine on v2? This is documented in
the cover letter, which apparently no one ever reads so I wonder why
we even write them; and listed as a dep, which said checks pick up
just fine.

As I have mentioned multiple times, the vendor patch is separate
because I have multiple open series that depend on the vendor and
there's no telling which one will be picked up first.

Aaron