On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 05:26:06PM +0000, Shenwei Wang wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rob Herring (Arm) <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 2:48 PM > > To: Shenwei Wang <[email protected]> > > Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]>; dl-linux-imx <[email protected]>; > > [email protected]; Linus Walleij <[email protected]>; > > [email protected]; Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>; > > Sascha Hauer <[email protected]>; Shawn Guo <[email protected]>; > > [email protected]; Bjorn Andersson <[email protected]>; > > Pengutronix Kernel Team <[email protected]>; linux-arm- > > [email protected]; [email protected]; Peng Fan > > <[email protected]>; Conor Dooley <[email protected]>; > > [email protected]; Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>; Mathieu Poirier > > <[email protected]>; Fabio Estevam <[email protected]>; linux- > > [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] dt-bindings: remoteproc: imx_rproc: Add > > "rpmsg" subnode support > > > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 11:08:11 -0600, Shenwei Wang wrote: > > > Remote processors may announce multiple GPIO controllers over an RPMSG > > > channel. These GPIO controllers may require corresponding device tree > > > nodes, especially when acting as providers, to supply phandles for > > > their consumers. > > > > > > Define an RPMSG node to work as a container for a group of RPMSG > > > channels under the imx_rproc node. Each subnode within "rpmsg" > > > represents an individual RPMSG channel. The name of each subnode > > > corresponds to the channel name as defined by the remote processor. > > > > > > All remote devices associated with a given channel are defined as > > > child nodes under the corresponding channel node. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Shenwei Wang <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > .../devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-rpmsg.yaml | 55 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > .../bindings/remoteproc/fsl,imx-rproc.yaml | 53 ++++++++++++++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 108 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-rpmsg.yaml > > > > > > > My bot found errors running 'make dt_binding_check' on your patch: > > > > yamllint warnings/errors: > > > > dtschema/dtc warnings/errors: > > > > > > doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs): > > Warning: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-rpmsg.yaml references > > a file that doesn't exist: Documentation/driver-api/gpio/gpio-rpmsg.rst > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-rpmsg.yaml: > > Documentation/driver-api/gpio/gpio-rpmsg.rst > > > > The .rst file mentioned in the description is included in this same patch set.
Then can't the .rst doc come first? Really, bindings should not reference kernel docs as they are used outside the kernel. However, since there is no other definition of the protocol, I think it is fine here. Rob
