>
> *From: *Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> *Date: *Thursday, October 15, 2026 at 2:50 AM
> *To: *Levinsky, Ben <[email protected]>
> *Cc: *[email protected] <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> <[email protected]>;
> [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>;
> [email protected] <[email protected]>; Simek, Michal
> <[email protected]>;
> [email protected] <[email protected]>;
> [email protected] <[email protected]>; linux-arm-
> [email protected] <[email protected]>; linux-
> [email protected] <[email protected]>; Shah, Tanmay
> <[email protected]>
> *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 <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > .../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
