On Tue, 22 Sept 2026 at 13:44, Francesco Valla <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 09:40:31AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 11:10:53PM +0200, Francesco Valla wrote: > > > Add a new binding to describe remoteproc-provided virtio devices; while > > > these are discovered through a resource table parsed by the remoteproc > > > infrastructure at runtime, their description can be needed to probe > > > non-discoverable buses (such as I2C) or to link consumers and suppliers. > > > > > > Each vdev is described by a dedicated "group" node, which then includes > > > a virtio-device node, which binding is already existent and used by > > > virtio-mmio. Each vdev shall be stattically linked to a "group" node > > > using its index inside the resource table as the reg property of the > > > node; this permits to have multiple instances of the same type of > > > device. > > > > > > The binding is intended to be generic and adopted by any remoteproc > > > provider. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Francesco Valla <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > .../bindings/remoteproc/remoteproc-virtio.yaml | 89 > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 89 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/remoteproc-virtio.yaml > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/remoteproc-virtio.yaml > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 000000000000..c4a0d84b1460 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/remoteproc-virtio.yaml > > > @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@ > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > +--- > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/remoteproc/remoteproc-virtio.yaml# > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > + > > > +title: Virtio devices over remoteproc > > > + > > > +description: | > > > + Virtio devices ("vdevs") can be exposed using the remoteproc > > > infrastructure > > > + and its resource table. For some of them, a device tree node might be > > > needed > > > + to describe remote undiscoverable hardware and/or connect consumers and > > > + providers. > > > + > > > +maintainers: > > > + - Francesco Valla <[email protected]> > > > + > > > +properties: > > > + virtio: > > > + description: Contains a group of Virtio devices exposed by the > > > remoteproc. > > > + > > > + properties: > > > + '#address-cells': > > > + const: 1 > > > + > > > + '#size-cells': > > > + const: 0 > > > + > > > + patternProperties: > > > + "^vdev@[0-9a-f]+$": > > > + type: object > > > + > > > + properties: > > > + reg: > > > + description: Virtio device index inside the resource table. > > > + maxItems: 1 > > > + > > > + additionalProperties: > > > + type: object > > > + $ref: /schemas/virtio/virtio-device.yaml > > > + maxItems: 1 > > > + > > > + required: > > > + - reg > > > + > > > + additionalProperties: false > > > + > > > + required: > > > + - '#address-cells' > > > + - '#size-cells' > > > + > > > +additionalProperties: true > > > + > > > +examples: > > > + - | > > > + remoteproc-cm33 { > > > + virtio { > > > + #address-cells = <1>; > > > + #size-cells = <0>; > > > + > > > + vdev@0 { > > > + reg = <0>; > > > + > > > > Do we need the 'reg' since we already have vdev@X? I'll let the DT people > > provide their input on this. > > > > AFAIK yes, because the rproc_get_vdev_fwnode() helpers search for indexed > child nodes using the 'reg' property, not the node name. This I believe > is the preferred way of doing things. > > > > + gpio { > > > + compatible = "virtio,device29"; > > > + > > > + gpio-controller; > > > + #gpio-cells = <2>; > > > + }; > > > + }; > > > + > > > + vdev@1 { > > > + reg = <1>; > > > + > > > + i2c { > > > + compatible = "virtio,device22"; > > > + > > > + #address-cells = <1>; > > > + #size-cells = <0>; > > > + > > > + eeprom@50 { > > > + compatible = "atmel,24c1025"; > > > + reg = <0x50>; > > > + }; > > > > The previous patch introduced bindings for virtio SPI while the above two > > are > > for GPIO and I2c, which is very confusing. I suggest you pick one and apply > > everywhere. > > > > This is because both GPIO and I2C bindings are already defined - even if > not used in the devicetree files part of the kernel tree. > > Moving forward, I plan to submit at least the spi-virtio bindings as a > separate patch set, as they can be used independently of this one.
I suggest you leave spi-virtio out of this patchset. That way we can concentrate on doing only one thing. > > > > + }; > > > + }; > > > + }; > > > + }; > > > +... > > > > > > -- > > > 2.55.0 > > > > > Regards, > Francesco >
