Re: [PATCH 5/6] dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add RPMsg resources to AMD BRAM rproc

[Ben Levinsky]

> 
> *From: *Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> *Date: *Thursday, October 15, 2026 at 2:50 AM
> *To: *Levinsky, Ben <ben.levinsky@xxxxxxx>
> *Cc: *jassisinghbrar@xxxxxxxxx <jassisinghbrar@xxxxxxxxx>; andersson@xxxxxxxxxx 
> <andersson@xxxxxxxxxx>; mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx <mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx>; 
> robh@xxxxxxxxxx <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>; krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx <krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; 
> conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Simek, Michal <michal.simek@xxxxxxx>; 
> linux-remoteproc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <linux-remoteproc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
> devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-arm- 
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux- 
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Shah, Tanmay 
> <tanmay.shah@xxxxxxx>
> *Subject: *Re: [PATCH 5/6] dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add RPMsg resources to AMD 
> BRAM rproc
> 
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 02:34:25PM -0700, Ben Levinsky wrote:
>  > Describe the optional mailbox channels and named reserved-memory
>  > regions used for RPMsg communication with a BRAM-based MicroBlaze
>  > remote processor.
>  >
>  > The three named memory regions provide the two virtio vrings and the
>  > shared RPMsg buffer pool. Firmware and its loaded resource table remain
>  > in the executable BRAM described by reg.
>  >
>  > Assisted-by: LLM sparse
> 
> How sparse can assist here?


  Hi Krzysztof,

  It did not. As in patch 3, the trailer was applied to the whole series
  by mistake. I will correct it in v2.

> 
>  > Signed-off-by: Ben Levinsky <ben.levinsky@xxxxxxx>
>  > ---
>  >  .../bindings/remoteproc/amd,bram-rproc.yaml   | 31 +++++++++++++++++++
>  >  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
>  >
>  > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/amd,bram-rproc.yaml 
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/amd,bram-rproc.yaml
>  > index c0359f447ea8..daff8e615ab6 100644
>  > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/amd,bram-rproc.yaml
>  > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/amd,bram-rproc.yaml
>  > @@ -84,6 +84,33 @@ properties:
>  >      description:
>  >        GPIO specifier controlling the soft-core reset input.
>  >
>  > +  mboxes:
>  > +    maxItems: 2
>  > +
>  > +  mbox-names:
>  > +    items:
>  > +      - const: tx
>  > +      - const: rx
>  > +
>  > +  memory-region:
>  > +    maxItems: 3
>  > +
>  > +  memory-region-names:
>  > +    items:
>  > +      - const: vdev0vring0
>  > +      - const: vdev0vring1
>  > +      - const: vdev0buffer
>  > +
>  > +dependentRequired:
>  > +  mboxes:
>  > +    - mbox-names
>  > +  mbox-names:
>  > +    - mboxes
> 
> Why do you add this? Please instruct your LLM to actually understand and
> learn dtschema.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

  You are right. The core mailbox consumer schema already requires mboxes
  when mbox-names is present, and this block is not something bindings
  normally add. I will remove the whole dependentRequired block in v2.
  Thank you for pointing it out.

  Thanks,
  Ben