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.
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.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
Thanks,
Vishnu
