On 1/31/26 9:20 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:

On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 04:14:30PM +0530, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:

quoted

Based on the discussion in the linux-arm-msm list, it is not
appropriate to define the IMEM (On-Chip SRAM) as syscon or MFD.

So drop the compatible from qcom,imem.yaml and add it in sram.yaml
binding.

Signed-off-by: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <redacted>
---
Changes in v6:
	* New patch
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml | 1 -
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml      | 1 +
 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

quoted

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml
index c451140962c86f4e8f98437a2830cb2c6a697e63..7bd24305a8c7d98dc6efad81e72dc8d86d8b212b 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml

@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ properties:
         - nvidia,tegra186-sysram
         - nvidia,tegra194-sysram
         - nvidia,tegra234-sysram
+        - qcom,ipq5424-imem

Bjorn, Konrad, I sadly don't remember the outcome of our discussion. Do
we need to specify that this SRAM region is Qualcomm something IMEM or
do we not?

Do you mean BOOT_IMEM vs SYSTEM_IMEM?

I don't think we have a usecase for the former in Linux and I'm not
sure we ever will (plus we already refer to SYSTEM_IMEM as "imem" in
a lot, lot of places)

Konrad