On 15/02/2026 11:02, Onur Özkan wrote:

Some arm64 Mali GPU DT nodes define mali-supply but
are missing sram-supply.

As discussed in [1], sram-supply should be explicitly
defined for all relevant compatibles. If there is no
separate SRAM rail, it can reference the same regulator
as mali-supply.

But is this then a sram-supply?

For me it seems you just want to get rid of the warning from [1] and
that is not correct patch. I don't care about that warning and you
should not add DTS changes just to remove the warning.

You should add a CORRECT supply, if one exist. If one does not exist,
you cannot add it.

Please wrap commit message according to Linux coding style / submission
process (neither too early nor over the limit):
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.4-rc1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L597

This change adds the missing sram-supply properties to
affected DT files. This aligns DTs with expected regulator
modeling and avoids relying on implicit fallback behavior.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260213155937.6af75786@nimda/ (local)

That's not really relevant... and my first impression was that you miss
bindings. You should rather explain this all in terms of hardware or
bindings - e.g. this supply is or is not in the bindings and you are
adding it because it's missing.

Signed-off-by: Onur Özkan <work@onurozkan.dev>

Please split your patch per Soc subsystems.

---

...

There is no dedicated sram supply. It is probably routed internally, so
I don't think we should expose it.

Best regards,
Krzysztof