On 2/6/2026 10:01 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 12:27:30PM -0800, Tanmay Shah wrote:
>> From: Tim Michals <[email protected]>
>>
>> As per sram bindings, "sram" property can be list of phandles.
>> When more than one sram phandles are listed, driver can't parse second
>> phandle's address correctly. Because, phandle index is passed to the API
>> instead of offset of address from reg property which is always 0 as per
>> sram.yaml bindings. Fix it by passing 0 to the API instead of sram
>> phandle index.
>>
>> Fixes: 77fcdf51b8ca ("remoteproc: xlnx: Add sram support")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tim Michals <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> index bd619a6c42aa..970a9ef97945 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> @@ -1005,7 +1005,7 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_get_sram_banks(struct
>> zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core)
>> }
>>
>> /* Get SRAM device address */
>> - ret = of_property_read_reg(sram_np, i, &abs_addr, &size);
>> + ret = of_property_read_reg(sram_np, 0, &abs_addr, &size);
>
> I'll pick this up in two weeks when 6.20-rc1 comes out.
>
> On a separate note, it would help if an example that includes an "sram" was
> part
> of the xlnx_r5 bindings.
>
Thank You for reviews.
Sure, I will send separate patch including sram nodes in the bindings.
Tanmay
> Thanks,
> Mathieu
>
>> if (ret) {
>> dev_err(dev, "failed to get reg property\n");
>> goto fail_sram_get;
>>
>> base-commit: 85ab651885e1b542ee0bb9ec4642ef0b11716997
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>
>>
