Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: dts: qcom: Add device tree for Nord SoC series

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 28/04/2026 09:24, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 10:34:52AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
>> Add base device tree include (nord.dtsi) for the Nord SoC series
>> describing the core hardware components:
>>
>>  - 18 Oryon (qcom,oryon-1-5) cores in three clusters, with PSCI-based
>>    power management and CPU/cluster idle states
>>  - ARM GICv3 interrupt controller with ITS
>>  - TLMM GPIO/pinctrl controller
>>  - 8 TSENS thermal sensors with thermal zones
>>  - 3 APPS SMMU-500 instances
>>  - 3 QUPv3 GENI SE QUP blocks
>>  - PDP SCMI channel and mailbox
>>  - Watchdog, TRNG and TCSR
>>  - Reserved memory, CMD-DB and firmware SCM
>>  - PSCI and architected timers
>>
>> Co-developed-by: Deepti Jaggi <deepti.jaggi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Deepti Jaggi <deepti.jaggi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Co-developed-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <shengchao.guo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/nord.dtsi | 4511 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 4511 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/nord.dtsi
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/nord.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/nord.dtsi
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..00d189cfed8c
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/nord.dtsi
>> @@ -0,0 +1,4511 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
>> +/*
>> + * Copyright (c) Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. and/or its subsidiaries.
>> + */
>> +
>> +#include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
>> +
>> +/ {
>> +	interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
>> +	#address-cells = <2>;
>> +	#size-cells = <2>;
>> +
>> +	cpus {
>> +		#address-cells = <2>;
>> +		#size-cells = <0>;
>> +
>> +		cpu0: cpu@0 {
>> +			device_type = "cpu";
>> +			compatible = "qcom,oryon-1-5";
> 
> I asked you to send this binding WITH the user, because they go via
> the same tree. I see the user, but no binding for it in the patchset.

And few others like SCM are also missing. I am talking about this many
times already, to multiple vendors, and I am still surprised why people
on purpose give more work to the maintainer. Well, not my tree, so not
my work, but if you ever wonder why your patches are not applied for
longer time, that could be one of the reasons.

Best regards,
Krzysztof