On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 9:54 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:57 PM Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 10:52 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > + description: |
> > > + Exactly one node describing the virtio device. The name of the node isn't
> > > + significant but its phandle can be used to by a user of the virtio device.
> > > +
> > > + compatible:
> > > + pattern: "^virtio,[0-9a-f]+$"
> >
> > DID is only 4 chars? If so, "^virtio,[0-9a-f]{1,4}$"
>
> Any opinion on whether this should have any namespace prefix (or infix, I guess)
> after "virtio,"?
>
> I previously suggested making it "virtio,device[0-9a-f]{1,4}$", which would
> make it clearer that the following digits are the device ID rather
> than something
> else we might define in the future. Viresh picked this version because it's
> somewhat more consistent with other subsystems.
I'm fine either way, though I do find just a number a bit strange. So
I'd lean toward adding 'device' or even just a 'd'.
BTW, what happens if/when the device protocol is rev'ed? A new DID or
is there a separate revision that's discoverable?
Rob
