08:45 <z3ntu> bamse: should I resend this series? https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/list/?series=943891&state=%2A&archive=both As far as I can tell, there's only R-b and no negative comments on this series

08:46 <z3ntu> lumag: thanks for the pil-squasher patch, I'll give this a shot

09:33 <kathirav> robher, Regarding the comment https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20250610180345.GA2382213-robh@kernel.org/, In the V4, the property name was "qcom,imem" and decided to put value in the DT itself. Based on the comments, I have changed the property name to "sram" and put the desired value in DT.

09:33 <kathirav> Currently the IMEM region in all QCOM platforms are described as syscon (qcom,imem.yaml). How should I proceed now, should I change the property name to something else or do you suggest changing that approach and describe the IMEM as SRAM (mmio-sram) and point it from watchdog device? Looking for the suggestions

09:33 <kathirav> konradybcio, krzk Please share your thoughts as well.

10:25 <lumag> kathirav: could you please keep the discussion on the mailing list?

10:47 <kathirav> Sure lumag. I thought I can discuss here and mention the outcome in the mailing list. Anyways, I will start the discussion in mail itself

10:52 <krzk> I don't understand. You received comment so reply to it.

10:53 <krzk> Provide arguments, not reach on IRC to have some sort of other discussion channel.

10:53 <kathirav> Understood krzk