Re: [PATCH RESEND v4 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: oneplus-kebab: new device

[Konrad Dybcio]

On 11/9/26 3:53 PM, Frieder Hannenheim wrote:
> On Mon Nov 9, 2026 at 12:08 PM CET, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 11/5/26 9:20 PM, Frieder Hannenheim wrote:
>>> Add initial device-tree for the OnePlus 8T. Downstream reference is [1].
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/LineageOS/android_kernel_oneplus_sm8250/blob/lineage-23.2/arch/arm64/boot/dts/vendor/oplus/kona-kebab-overlay.dts
>>>
>>> Co-developed-by: Robert Oscilowski <drgitx@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Robert Oscilowski <drgitx@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Frieder Hannenheim <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> +&i2c2 {
>>> +	status = "okay";
>>> +
>>> +	pm8008: pmic@8 {
>>> +		compatible = "qcom,pm8008";
>>
>> No PM8008 on the other phone?
> 
> There's 4 phones in total: 8 (instantnoodle), 8 Pro (instantnoodlep), 8T (kebab)
> and 9R (lemonades). The OnePlus 8 doesn't have a PM8008. Should I define
> this in -common? It would need to be disabled when a dts for the OnePlus 8 is
> submitted.

Okay, I thought there were only two. Do the remaining two feature
this PMIC? Generally we try to do a lowest common denominator in
-common, whatever that ends up being


>>> +		reg = <0x8>;
>>> +
>>> +		interrupt-parent = <&tlmm>;
>>> +		interrupts = <112 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
>>
>> interrupts-extended = <&tlmm 112 IRQ..>
> 
> May I ask why? According to the docs interrupts-extended is only useful with
> multiple interrupt parents which is not the case here. Or just for brevity?

Yep just to be concise

>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> +&vreg_f {
>>> +	status = "disabled";
>>> +};
>>
>> I think it may be cleaner to move the definition to the other
>> phone's DT (are there just 2, or more?)
>>
>> Konrad
> 
> The f block is used on the 8 and 8 Pro I believe. So I think it's best to keep
> it this way.

Thinking about it again, I'm a little surprised there would be variance
between them. Can you do

`cat /sys/kernel/debug/qcom_socinfo/pmic_model_array`

?

Konrad