Re: [PATCH v3] dt-bindings: remoteproc: qcom,shikra-pas: Allow bam-dmux subnode

[Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 04:53:36PM +0530, Vishnu Santhosh wrote:
> 
> On 14-08-2026 02:35 pm, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 04:55:54PM +0530, Vishnu Santhosh wrote:
> > > Allow an optional bam-dmux subnode under qcom,shikra-mpss-pas by
> > > referencing qcom,bam-dmux.yaml.
> > I still miss the answer why. Last time you said in present tense that
> > this node exists there, which I objected. The answer to my objections is
> > to provide proper reason why you are adding this, why you are doing it.
> > Answer almost never is: repeat what the diff is doing.
> > 
> > You change something in the bindings because something exists in the
> > hardware and it was missed in initial submission, and you explain the
> > impact of that "missing".
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Krzysztof
> 
> Understood. The reason is not that there is already an in-tree DTS that
> fails validation today. Rather, it is driven by the intended Shikra MPSS
> topology.
> 

If that's the actual problem, then the fix seems to be to just remove
the offending snippet! But this isn't the actual problem you're trying
to solve.

> In the earlier Shikra BAM-DMUX DTS posting, the bam-dmux node was initially
> placed outside the modem remoteproc node. Based on review feedback from
> Stephan [1], it was requested that bam-dmux be moved under the modem remoteproc
> node instead. The rationale was that placing the bam-dmux node at the top level
> makes it impossible for userspace to associate it with a remoteproc instance
> (in this case, the modem). This binding change therefore exists to describe
> the intended Shikra MPSS child-node topology.
> 
> The DTS user of this binding has not been merged yet. Its next revision is being
> held until a separate discussion regarding an XPU violation is concluded. Our
> intention is to get the required binding changes merged first so that the DT patch
> can be sent once those discussions are complete.
> 
> Please let me know if adding the above context to the commit message is what you
> are expecting.
> 

Don't describe the path that took you here, explain why there should be
a bam-dmux subnode.

Regards,
Bjorn

> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/airpBYZ2pRdNaE1v@linaro.org/
> 
> Thanks,
> Vishnu
> 
> >