On Tue, Oct 06, 2026 at 09:18:23AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > On Mon, 5 Oct 2026 at 21:07, Rob Herring <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 01:42:29PM -0500, Shenwei Wang wrote: > > > From: Shenwei Wang <[email protected]> > > > > > > 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. > > > > Sorry, but DT defines the names of nodes. If it's a gpio-controller, > > then 'gpio'. > > > > I still don't understand where the unit address gets defined. 0 and 1 > > look a bit made up. I'm sure you explained it before, but *this patch* > > needs to explain it. When you define a second protocol, the 0 and 1 > > addresses are taken already, so you can't have 'clock-controller@0' for > > example. > > > > I had a conversation with Krzysztof about this here in Prague. We > have decided to adopt the bindings proposed by Francesco in this > thread [1].
Same question applies there. Where do the 0 and 1 addresses come from? Will reply on that thread. Rob > > [1]. > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > > Rob
