Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 Jul 2022 17:27:32 +0200 | From | Marek Behún <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] [RFT] dt-bindings: leds: Add cznic,turris1x-leds.yaml binding |
| |
On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 13:19:12 +0200 Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 July 2022 13:15:07 Marek Behún wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 17:59:28 +0200 > > Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > +examples: > > > + - | > > > + #include <dt-bindings/leds/common.h> > > > + > > > + cpld@3,0 { > > > > The generic node name should be just "bus". That it is a CPLD > > implementation should come from compatible string. > > Sorry, I do not understand why "bus". Why other memory chips are named > e.g. "nand" or "nor" and not "bus" too?
As far as I understand this is because that is the preferred name for busses and this is a bus, since there is also the simple-bus compatible.
> By this logic should not be _every_ node called just "bus"? Hm... and > are names needed at all then?
:-)
The schema https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema/blob/main/dtschema/schemas/simple-bus.yaml allows for different names (soc|axi|ahb|*-bus) to avoid warnings on existing old dts files.
The preferred way is to not have the implementation in nodename, similar to how we use 'switch' instead of 'mv88e6xxx', or 'ethernet-phy' instead of 'mv88e151x', or 'led-controller', ...
I wasn't there when people started requesting for this to be that way, but I guess it makes some sense to make it more readable and less redundant (the generic name in nodename and the implementation in compatible string...).
Marek
| |