Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] dt-bindings: sram: Describe the IMEM present in Qualcomm IPQ SoCs

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 04/03/2026 12:16, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
> 
> On 3/3/2026 4:18 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 3/2/26 5:33 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 02/03/2026 15:56, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/26 3:54 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 02/03/2026 15:10, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>>>> Also not accurate - "sram" is not the reboot reason, which has node name
>>>>>>> called "reboot-mode".
>>>>>> What I was referring to is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> patternProperties:
>>>>>>    "^([a-z0-9]*-)?sram(-section)?@[a-f0-9]+$":
>>>>>>
>>>>>> where the 'sram' (not 'smem' as I typo'd above) is obligatory
>>>>> I know and sram is not part of "reboot-mode" name. It is "reboot-mode"
>>>>> in existing binding and DTS, not "reboot-mode-sram".
>>>> In any case, I believe it'd be good to drop that requirement
>>> Ah, and one more thing, the syscon-reboot-mode is Linux driver with its
>>> own Linux requirements - syscon - so probably not working with sram
>>> bindings. That's another reason full binding should be posted and tested
>>> - I speculate it simply does not work.
>> It won't even probe, we talked about that a long time ago on a similar
>> occasion
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/f6b16d1d-3730-46d1-81aa-bfaf09c20754@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> 
> Sorry, TBH, I'm confused here...
> 
> I agree that, DT node should be as simple as below for now until the 
> child node is added.
> 
> sram@8600000 {
>     compatible = "qcom,ipq5332-imem", "mmio-sram";
>     reg = <0x08600000 0x14000>;
>     no-memory-wc;
> };
> 
> When I add the child node, it will eventually become like
> 
> sram@8600000 {
>          compatible = "qcom,ipq5332-imem", "mmio-sram";
>          reg = <0 0x08600000 0 0x1c000>;
>          ranges = <0 0 0x08600000 0x1c000>;
> 
>          no-memory-wc;
> 
>          #address-cells = <1>;
>          #size-cells = <1>;
> 
>          restart_reason: restartreason-sram@7b0 {
>                  reg = <0x7b0 0x4>;
>          };
> };
> 
> which seems to be matching with the binding requirements.
> 
> and the consumer can reference to this node like
> 
> sram = <&restart_reason>;
> 
> I'm not following what's being suggested here. Can you please help me to 
> understand further on this.

I already asked you what to do.

"Nope, sorry. Bindings must be posted complete, see writing-bindings."

So post it after testing. We suggest that it simply does not work, but
you can always prove us wrong.

Best regards,
Krzysztof