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

[Abel Vesa]

On 26-05-16 12:37:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 16/05/2026 12:34, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > On 26-05-16 11:59:37, 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(+)
> >>
> >> Heh, I noticed only after sending email - where is any user of that?
> >>
> >> I expressed it many times - we do not take bindings without users.
> > 
> > Well, my intention for the DT patchset was to include the eliza-cqm-som.dtsi
> > and eliza-cqm-ek.dts as well, basically having the eliza-cqm-som.dtsi
> > include the eliza-cqs-som.dtsi and later on add the modem (and the rest
> > of the CQM) in there.
> > 
> > But then, I realized that I don't know exactly the differences between
> > CQM and CQS, specifically the SoM related ones.
> > 
> > So I decided to send without the CQM entirely.
> 
> But it is not about CQM. There is no user of any of these - neither CQS
> nor CQM.

I'm not sure I understand this one. Here is the CQS user:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260515-eliza-dts-qcs-evk-v1-2-7169d78a33e1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

> 
> And still whatever intention you had, it cannot bypass the rules - we do
> not take bindings without users. They make almost no sense to the
> project, because the goal is not to document entire world's hardware in
> the DT.

I agree. I should've replied back to this thread to say it should be
ignored as I should send a v2 without the CQM.