[PATCH v2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: qcom,shikra-pas: Allow bam-dmux subnode

[PATCH v2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: qcom,shikra-pas: Allow bam-dmux subnode

[Vishnu Santhosh]

The BAM-DMUX node lives as a direct child of the modem PAS remoteproc
node, but qcom,shikra-pas.yaml has unevaluatedProperties: false and
does not list bam-dmux, so any DT adding this subnode fails schema
validation.

Add an optional bam-dmux property referencing qcom,bam-dmux.yaml,
mirroring qcom,msm8916-mss-pil.yaml.

Co-developed-by: Deepak Kumar Singh <deepak.singh@oss.qualcomm.com>
Signed-off-by: Deepak Kumar Singh <deepak.singh@oss.qualcomm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vishnu Santhosh <vishnu.santhosh@oss.qualcomm.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Restrict bam-dmux to the qcom,shikra-mpss-pas compatible.
- Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260727-shikra-pas-bam-dmux-binding-v1-1-c0159c7c3ed4@oss.qualcomm.com
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,shikra-pas.yaml   | 15 +++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,shikra-pas.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,shikra-pas.yaml
index 253b14eb2b598f0ca91854c8ff4d0b785090e621..eeb87aa5fae7ad9022fc800075c2f9e906b16ae6 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,shikra-pas.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,shikra-pas.yaml
@@ -44,6 +44,11 @@ properties:
       - description: Firmware name of the Hexagon core
       - description: Firmware name of the Hexagon Devicetree
 
+  bam-dmux:
+    $ref: /schemas/net/qcom,bam-dmux.yaml#
+    description:
+      Qualcomm BAM Data Multiplexer (provides network interface to the modem)
+
   glink-edge:
     $ref: /schemas/remoteproc/qcom,glink-edge.yaml#
     description:
@@ -117,6 +122,16 @@ allOf:
         power-domains: false
         power-domain-names: false
 
+  - if:
+      properties:
+        compatible:
+          enum:
+            - qcom,shikra-cdsp-pas
+            - qcom,shikra-lpaicp-pas
+    then:
+      properties:
+        bam-dmux: false
+
 unevaluatedProperties: false
 
 examples:

---
base-commit: f5098b6bae761e346ebcd9da7f95622c04733cff
change-id: 20260727-shikra-pas-bam-dmux-binding-28a6bf97857c

Best regards,
-- 
Vishnu Santhosh <vishnu.santhosh@oss.qualcomm.com>

Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: qcom,shikra-pas: Allow bam-dmux subnode

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 02:21:01PM +0530, Vishnu Santhosh wrote:
> The BAM-DMUX node lives as a direct child of the modem PAS remoteproc

No, it does not. Look:

  $  git describe
  next-20260729
  $ git grep bam-dmux
  No child node shown

Why isn't this part of Shikra remoteproc commit/patch? How any code
could pass validation otherwise?

> node, but qcom,shikra-pas.yaml has unevaluatedProperties: false and
> does not list bam-dmux, so any DT adding this subnode fails schema
> validation.

Fails how? How can I reproduce the error?

There is no bam-dma in this binding example.


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: qcom,shikra-pas: Allow bam-dmux subnode

[Vishnu Santhosh]

On 30-07-2026 12:53 pm, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 02:21:01PM +0530, Vishnu Santhosh wrote:
>> The BAM-DMUX node lives as a direct child of the modem PAS remoteproc
> No, it does not. Look:
>
>    $  git describe
>    next-20260729
>    $ git grep bam-dmux
>    No child node shown

The commit message overstated this. The dt changes are yet to be merged.
I'll correct it in v3.

>
> Why isn't this part of Shikra remoteproc commit/patch? How any code
> could pass validation otherwise?

By the time the BAM-DMUX support was brought up and validated, the
remoteproc changes was already in a stable state. Therefore, the
bam-dmux change is being submitted separately.

>> node, but qcom,shikra-pas.yaml has unevaluatedProperties: false and
>> does not list bam-dmux, so any DT adding this subnode fails schema
>> validation.
> Fails how? How can I reproduce the error?
>
> There is no bam-dma in this binding example.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Did you mean bam-dmux (the property this patch adds)? If so, I'll add
an example with a bam-dmux subnode in v3.


Thanks,
Vishnu

Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: qcom,shikra-pas: Allow bam-dmux subnode

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 04/08/2026 17:18, Vishnu Santhosh wrote:
> 
> On 30-07-2026 12:53 pm, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 02:21:01PM +0530, Vishnu Santhosh wrote:
>>> The BAM-DMUX node lives as a direct child of the modem PAS remoteproc
>> No, it does not. Look:
>>
>>    $  git describe
>>    next-20260729
>>    $ git grep bam-dmux
>>    No child node shown
> 
> The commit message overstated this. The dt changes are yet to be merged.
> I'll correct it in v3.
> 
>>
>> Why isn't this part of Shikra remoteproc commit/patch? How any code
>> could pass validation otherwise?
> 
> By the time the BAM-DMUX support was brought up and validated, the
> remoteproc changes was already in a stable state. Therefore, the

No, it was not in stable state if it was not merged.

> bam-dmux change is being submitted separately.

No, bindings should be complete.

> 
>>> node, but qcom,shikra-pas.yaml has unevaluatedProperties: false and
>>> does not list bam-dmux, so any DT adding this subnode fails schema
>>> validation.
>> Fails how? How can I reproduce the error?
>>
>> There is no bam-dma in this binding example.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
> 
> Did you mean bam-dmux (the property this patch adds)? If so, I'll add
> an example with a bam-dmux subnode in v3.

You claim something fails. Prove it.


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: qcom,shikra-pas: Allow bam-dmux subnode

[Vishnu Santhosh]

On 04-08-2026 09:08 pm, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 04/08/2026 17:18, Vishnu Santhosh wrote:
>> On 30-07-2026 12:53 pm, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 02:21:01PM +0530, Vishnu Santhosh wrote:
>>>> The BAM-DMUX node lives as a direct child of the modem PAS remoteproc
>>> No, it does not. Look:
>>>
>>>     $  git describe
>>>     next-20260729
>>>     $ git grep bam-dmux
>>>     No child node shown
>> The commit message overstated this. The dt changes are yet to be merged.
>> I'll correct it in v3.
>>
>>> Why isn't this part of Shikra remoteproc commit/patch? How any code
>>> could pass validation otherwise?
>> By the time the BAM-DMUX support was brought up and validated, the
>> remoteproc changes was already in a stable state. Therefore, the
> No, it was not in stable state if it was not merged.
>
>> bam-dmux change is being submitted separately.
> No, bindings should be complete.

Understood on both. I'll correct the commit message to describe this
as enabling the bam-dmux subnode in the binding, rather than
asserting the node already exists in a DT or that this fixes a
failure that doesn't exist today.

>
>>>> node, but qcom,shikra-pas.yaml has unevaluatedProperties: false and
>>>> does not list bam-dmux, so any DT adding this subnode fails schema
>>>> validation.
>>> Fails how? How can I reproduce the error?
>>>
>>> There is no bam-dma in this binding example.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof
>> Did you mean bam-dmux (the property this patch adds)? If so, I'll add
>> an example with a bam-dmux subnode in v3.
> You claim something fails. Prove it.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

I will fix the commit message, removing the false claim, and will fold
the bam-dmux example node into the yaml in the next revision so
dt_binding_check can be used to verify this patch.


Thanks,
Vishnu