Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] remoteproc: qcom_wcnss_iris: add support for WCN3610

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Thu, Mar 05, 2026 at 09:06:30AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2026 at 06:32:52PM -0600, Kerigan Creighton wrote:
> > Add a qcom,wcn3610 compatible string.
> > The WCN3610 shares the same register configuration as the
> > WCN3620, so its configuration is being reused.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kerigan Creighton <kerigancreighton@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Changes in v2:
> >  - Move remoteproc compatible string addition to the middle of 
> >    the patch set.
> >  - Add Reviewed-by Dmitry (thanks!)
> > ---
> >  drivers/remoteproc/qcom_wcnss_iris.c | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_wcnss_iris.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_wcnss_iris.c
> > index 2b89b4db6c..e58b59355f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_wcnss_iris.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_wcnss_iris.c
> > @@ -95,6 +95,7 @@ void qcom_iris_disable(struct qcom_iris *iris)
> >  }
> >  
> >  static const struct of_device_id iris_of_match[] = {
> > +	{ .compatible = "qcom,wcn3610", .data = &wcn3620_data },
> 
> So compatible with wcn3620? Why are you adding it in such case? Drop the
> change and express compatibility or explain lack of it in the bindings
> patch.

I'd say, keep the compatible. It's used in the next patch. But yes, it
might need some epxlanation.

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry