Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: mmc: sdhci-msm: Add ICE phandle
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
Date: 2026-02-17 20:16:44
Also in:
linux-mmc, lkml
On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 10:55:24AM +0530, Neeraj Soni wrote:
Starting with sc7280(kodiak), the ICE will have its own device-tree node. So add the qcom,ice property to reference it. To avoid double-modeling, when qcom,ice is present, disallow an embedded ICE
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
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
register region in the SDHCI node. Older SoCs without ICE remain valid as no additional requirement is imposed. Co-developed-by: Abel Vesa <redacted> Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <redacted> Co-developed-by: Abhinaba Rakshit <redacted> Signed-off-by: Abhinaba Rakshit <redacted> Signed-off-by: Neeraj Soni <redacted> --- Some initial work is done by Abel here: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ba3da82d-999b-b040-5230-36e60293e0fd@linaro.org/ (local) and by Abhinaba here: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251009-add-separate-ice-ufs-and-emmc-device-nodes-for-qcs615-platform-v1-1-2a34d8d03c72@oss.qualcomm.com/ (local) This patch adds the purpose and usage for phandle in the description and encodes it properly in the schema. --- .../devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-msm.yaml | 15 +++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-msm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-msm.yaml index 938be8228d66..9b902e0c8d09 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-msm.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-msm.yaml@@ -140,6 +140,11 @@ properties: $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 description: platform specific settings for DLL_CONFIG reg. + qcom,ice: + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle + description: + phandle to the Inline Crypto Engine (ICE) hardware block for this controller.
Srsly, I asked once and not much improved. What is explicitly written in coding style which I asked you twice to read? And how long is this line? Why such trivialities cannot be fixed and I need to remind this every time?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ iommus: minItems: 1 maxItems: 8@@ -223,6 +228,16 @@ allOf: - const: cqhci - const: ice + - if: + required: + - qcom,ice + then: + properties: + reg-names: + not: + contains: + const: ice
And reg is still 4? This is not correct syntax. You need to define proper and final constraints per each device. I would write example, but why... more things you could just ignore. Best regards, Krzysztof