[]..

quoted

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-mtp.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-mtp.dts
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..617c7bb25fb1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-mtp.dts

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0

It would, of course, be up to Qualcomm.  ...but might I suggest instead:

// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)

The device tree files really don't have any special secret sauce in
them and IIRC allowing them to have a more permissive MIT license _or_
a GPL allowed people to run other operating systems on these boards.
This kind of thing is better to fix now so we don't have to go and get
everyone's permission later on.

sure, sounds reasonable, but I am told I need to get this reviewed once
by qualcomm legal before we go ahead and use the dual licensing copyright.
I will update based on what I hear.

[]..

quoted

+/*
+ * Copyright (c) 2018, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
+ */

IMHO add an extra line to this comment with a description to avoid the
bike shedding of how we're supposed to do 1-line comments in device
tree files.  AKA:

/*
 * SDM845 MTP board device tree source
 *
 * Copyright (c) 2018, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
 */

sure will update.

quoted

+
+/dts-v1/;
+
+#include "sdm845.dtsi"
+
+/ {
+       model = "Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. SDM845 MTP";
+       compatible = "qcom,sdm845-mtp";

For me checkpatch complains about this.  It looks like the file
"Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.txt" needs to be updated
with "sdm845".  I don't think that will make checkpatch be quiet
(since  that file doesn't have a full list of every board), but it
still should be the correct thing to do.

sure, I missed updating it, will fix.

quoted

+};

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..55a7e0b454e1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi

@@ -0,0 +1,275 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0

As per above, suggest dual licensed?

quoted

+/*
+ * Copyright (c) 2018, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.

As per above, suggest adding an extra line to avoid the bikeshed.

SDM845 SoC device tree source


Besides those things, everything looks good as far as I can see.  I'm
not an expert on every one of the devices used in this file, but
reading through bindings docs and looking at other users of them, it
looks sane enough.  Thus, with the above nits fixed you can feel free
to add my Reviewed-by.

Thanks, the only thing I need to wait for before I respin this is to
get a go ahead from legal for the dual licensing copyright header.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation