On 05/01/2026 06:56, Padhi, Beleswar wrote:

On 1/2/2026 6:00 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 10:21:00PM +0530, Beleswar Padhi wrote:

quoted

Some of the TI K3 family of SoCs have a HSM (High Security Module) M4F
core in the Wakeup Voltage Domain which could be used to run secure
services like Authentication. Add the device tree bindings document for
this HSM M4F core.

The added example illustrates the DT node for the HSM core present on K3
J722S SoC.

A nit, subject: drop second/last, redundant "bindings for". The
"dt-bindings" prefix is already stating that these are bindings.
See also:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.17-rc3/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst#L18

quoted

Signed-off-by: Beleswar Padhi <redacted>
---
  .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-hsm-rproc.yaml  | 79 +++++++++++++++++++
  1 file changed, 79 insertions(+)
  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-hsm-rproc.yaml

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-hsm-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-hsm-rproc.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..f61e4046843af
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-hsm-rproc.yaml

Filename must match the compatible. Are you sure you are following
internal TI guidelines? Did you read them?

Will address all comments in v2. Most of these issues exist with other
upstreamed TI dt-bindings as well, will send out a separate cleanup
series for those too.

This was not my question. Are you following carefully internal TI
guidelines to avoid common mistakes?


Best regards,
Krzysztof