Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document Eliza CQM and CQS EVK boards

[Abel Vesa]

On 26-05-16 11:58:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 02:13:31PM +0300, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > Document the compatible strings for the Qualcomm Eliza CQM and CQS EVK
> > boards. Both boards are built from a base board paired with a SoM which
> > is populated with either CQ7790M or CQ7790S (Eliza variants), PMICs,
> > LPDDR, eMMC and UFS.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> > index 2741c07e9f41..28a18254b4b7 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> > @@ -63,6 +63,8 @@ properties:
> >  
> >        - items:
> >            - enum:
> > +              - qcom,eliza-cqm-evk
> > +              - qcom,eliza-cqs-evk
> 
> When we talked privately, I asked to mirror Shikra approach. But you did
> not - it's different from what Shikra sent.

Because I think it is wrong to describe the SoM since it can't be used
without a base board. Listing SoMs is useless, IMO. But maybe I'm wrong.

So my reason for doing this is basically reducing the list to only
describe entire setups: MTP, CQM EVK and CQS EVK. No SoMs.

> 
> Shikra received my comments - but you did not mirror these, either.
> Basically you went with third approach... well, I think this is the same
> case as in Shikra, thus comments from Shikra apply here (at least what
> I expect to see). Also, another reason is that this should be
> consistent.

I did read go through your comments, but giving the rationale I
described above. I did realize just now that I misunderstood your
comment on Shikra patchset.

Anyway, will rework according to your suggestion.

Thanks for reviewing!