Hi Stephan,

On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 20:12, Stephan Gerhold [off-list ref] wrote:

In some configurations, the BAM DMA controller is set up by a remote
processor and the local processor can simply start making use of it
without setting up the BAM. This is already supported using the
"qcom,controlled-remotely" property.

However, for some reason another possible configuration is that the
remote processor is responsible for powering up the BAM, but we are
still responsible for initializing it (e.g. resetting it etc). Add
a "qcom,powered-remotely" property to describe that configuration.

Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net>
---
Changes since RFC:
  - Rename qcom,remote-power-collapse -> qcom,powered-remotely
    for consistency with "qcom,controlled-remotely"

NOTE: This is *not* a compile-time requirement for the BAM-DMUX driver
      so this could also go through the dmaengine tree.

Also note that there is an ongoing effort to convert these bindings
to DT schema but sadly there were not any updates for a while. :/
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20210519143700.27392-2-bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org/ (local)

Seems you missed the latest series posted last week - [1]. Sorry I got
a bit delayed posting it due to being caught up in other patches.

Maybe you can rebase your patch on the same and use the YAML bindings
for the qcom,bam_dma controller.

[1]. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20211013105541.68045-1-bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org/T/#t (local)

Regards,
Bhupesh