Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: shikra: Add BAM-DMUX support

[Stephan Gerhold <stephan.gerhold@linaro.org>]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 09:31:06PM +0530, Vishnu Santhosh wrote:
> On 11-06-2026 02:25 pm, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 02:11:59PM +0530, Vishnu Santhosh wrote:
> > > +	bam_dmux: bam-dmux {
> > > +		compatible = "qcom,bam-dmux";
> > > +
> > > +		interrupts-extended = <&modem_smsm 1 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH>,
> > > +				      <&modem_smsm 11 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH>;
> > > +		interrupt-names = "pc",
> > > +				  "pc-ack";
> > > +
> > > +		qcom,smem-states = <&apps_smsm 1>,
> > > +				   <&apps_smsm 11>;
> > > +		qcom,smem-state-names = "pc",
> > > +					"pc-ack";
> > > +
> > > +		dmas = <&bam_dmux_dma 4>, <&bam_dmux_dma 5>;
> > > +		dma-names = "tx", "rx";
> > > +	};
> > This should be a child node of the modem remoteproc. See msm8916.dtsi
> > for example.
> 
> Thanks for the context! We actually referenced msm8916.dtsi during bring-up
> and initially placed bam-dmux as a
> remoteproc child. We then hit the issue that the driver was not probing at
> all. After some digging, we realized
> that qcom_q6v5_mss.c (used by msm8916) explicitly calls
> of_platform_device_create() for its qcom,bam-dmux child,
> but qcom_q6v5_pas.c which Shikra uses has no such logic, so the platform
> device was never created.
> 
> There was a prior attempt to fix this generically by adding
> of_platform_populate() to qcom_q6v5.c
> (https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251223123227.1317244-3-gaurav.kohli@oss.qualcomm.com/),
> but it was blocked
> because GLINK/SMD edge child nodes would also get spurious platform devices
> registered for them.
> That series remains unresolved at v1.
> 
> Since your driver already manages modem lifecycle independently via SMSM
> state bits without remoteproc dependency,
> we moved it to the root level where of_platform_populate() picks it up at
> boot, and everything worked.
> 
> Would love to get your suggestion on whether this approach is welcomed,
> since it needs zero driver changes.
> 

Adding the bam-dmux node top-level makes it impossible for userspace to
associate it with a remoteproc (for this purpose: the "modem"). If you
add it below the remoteproc the udev/sysfs path will include the
remoteproc and you can tell that the network interfaces exposed by
bam_dmux belong to that remoteproc.

As you noticed, having a generic of_platform_populate() for remoteproc
nodes is problematic, because usually subnodes are remoteproc subdevs.
Also, the cooling device use case in the thread you linked doesn't have
any resources attached, so the root complaint there was that you don't
need a separate subnode at all.

I would just replicate the special qcom,bam-dmux logic inside
qcom_q6v5_pas.c. I think the motivation for BAM-DMUX explained in commit
59983c74fc42 ("remoteproc: qcom_q6v5_mss: Create platform device for
BAM-DMUX") is still valid. Conceptually, BAM-DMUX is a subdevice of the
modem remoteproc, since the remoteproc is responsible for powering the
BAM-DMUX hardware on and off. The fact that BAM-DMUX is not a remoteproc
subdev in Linux is more an implementation detail of the current Linux
driver. This is independent from the model in the device tree.

Thanks,
Stephan