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

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