Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/3] dt-bindings: sram: qcom,imem: Allow modem-tables subnode

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 18/02/2026 14:32, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If you'd prefer a blanket pattern declaration with say '^[a-z]@[0-9a-z]+$'
>>>>> with just a reg requirement inside, I'm fine with that too
>>>>
>>>> No, the problem is that you do not use the ABI here at all. Neither
>>>> would you use the blanket pattern, so my question stays: why adding ABI
>>>> which is not used?
>>>
>>> The subnode I'm trying to introduce is going to be consumed (via a
>>> phandle reference) from the IPA node, as done by the remaining 2
>>> patches in this series.
>>
>> And that's the problem - I do not see consuming child. I see
>> of_parse_phandle to sram node, not the child.
> 
> Ah, I just realized this series has no DT examples..
> 
> The property I proposed to add into the IPA node&code is indeed
> named 'sram', but my intention is to pass a phandle to the *child*
> (similarly like we pass a phandle to the child of a nvmem provider
> rather than to the provider device itself)
> 
> i.e. the design I envisioned is:
> 
> imem@foo {
> 	...
> 
> 	ipa_modem_tables: modem-tables@1234 {
> 		reg = <0x1234 0x1234>;
> 	};
> };
> 
> ...
> 
> ipa@foobar {
> 	...
> 
> 	sram = <&ipa_modem_tables>;
> }

OK, this explains my questions.


Best regards,
Krzysztof