From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Claude Code Review Bot To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com Subject: Claude review: dt-bindings: misc: qcom,fastrpc: Add compatible for Hawi SoC Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2026 13:59:21 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260427190913.3680717-1-mukesh.ojha@oss.qualcomm.com> References: <20260427190913.3680717-1-mukesh.ojha@oss.qualcomm.com> <20260427190913.3680717-1-mukesh.ojha@oss.qualcomm.com> X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Patch Review **Commit message:** Clear and adequate. States that Hawi fastrpc is "fully = compatible with Qualcomm Kaanapali fastrpc," which correctly explains why i= t's added as a fallback entry under the `qcom,kaanapali-fastrpc` const. **Code change:** ```yaml - items: - enum: - qcom,glymur-fastrpc + - qcom,hawi-fastrpc - const: qcom,kaanapali-fastrpc ``` The new entry is inserted in alphabetical order within the enum list, which= is correct dt-binding convention. The schema structure is preserved =E2=80= =94 `qcom,hawi-fastrpc` paired with the `qcom,kaanapali-fastrpc` fallback i= s the standard two-element compatible pattern for SoC-specific variants tha= t are compatible with an existing SoC's implementation. **One minor observation:** There is no corresponding driver-side change to = add `qcom,hawi-fastrpc` to a `of_device_id` table. This is fine if the driv= er already matches on the fallback `qcom,kaanapali-fastrpc` compatible (whi= ch is the intent of the two-entry compatible list), but the submitter shoul= d confirm the driver does match on the fallback. This is standard practice = for dt-binding-only patches and not a blocking concern. **No issues.** Reviewed-by worthy as-is. --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer