On 18/02/2026 14:32, Konrad Dybcio wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

If you'd prefer a blanket pattern declaration with say '^[a-z]@[0-9a-z]+$'
with just a reg requirement inside, I'm fine with that too

No, the problem is that you do not use the ABI here at all. Neither
would you use the blanket pattern, so my question stays: why adding ABI
which is not used?

The subnode I'm trying to introduce is going to be consumed (via a
phandle reference) from the IPA node, as done by the remaining 2
patches in this series.

And that's the problem - I do not see consuming child. I see
of_parse_phandle to sram node, not the child.

Ah, I just realized this series has no DT examples..

The property I proposed to add into the IPA node&code is indeed
named 'sram', but my intention is to pass a phandle to the *child*
(similarly like we pass a phandle to the child of a nvmem provider
rather than to the provider device itself)

i.e. the design I envisioned is:

imem@foo {
	...

	ipa_modem_tables: modem-tables@1234 {
		reg = <0x1234 0x1234>;
	};
};

...

ipa@foobar {
	...

	sram = <&ipa_modem_tables>;
}

OK, this explains my questions.


Best regards,
Krzysztof