Rob Herring писал(а) 21.01.2022 00:15:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 09:14:40PM +0500, Nikita Travkin wrote:
>> It looks like it was intended to allow two types of node names with the
>> binding:
>>
>> - With unit address, e.g. pwm@1f000000
>
> Yes, but the format of the unit-address is up to the parent bus which is
> outside the scope of this binding.
>
>> - With a suffix, e.g. pwm-clk
>
> No. pwm-0, pwm-1, etc. only to cover the few cases with no unit-address.
>
> Third is just 'pwm' as the '*' on the end means 0 or more. Though a '?'
> would have been more correct.
>
Oh, thanks for clarifying that. My assumption was that just numbering
the nodes is not informative enough, but if it's the agreed way to do
it, I will use this format instead.
I will drop this commit and correct the bindings to use 'pwm' with
no suffix as an example. (Though I still think that having a
meaningful suffix is nicer in the DT so one could see what the
node is used for)
Thanks
Nikita
>>
>> However the pattern regex only correctly matches the first variant,
>> as well as some incorrect ones.
>>
>> Fix the regex to match only two patterns shown above. (Either unit
>> address starting with @ and following with one or more hexademical
>> digit or arbitrary suffix stating with - and at least one symbol long)
>>
>> Fixes: 89650a1e3b6f ("dt-bindings: pwm: Convert PWM bindings to json-schema")
>> Signed-off-by: Nikita Travkin <nikita@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.yaml | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.yaml
>> index 3c01f85029e5..4926fe65886f 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.yaml
>> @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ select: false
>>
>> properties:
>> $nodename:
>> - pattern: "^pwm(@.*|-[0-9a-f])*$"
>> + pattern: "^pwm(@[0-9a-f]+|-.+)?$"
>>
>> "#pwm-cells":
>> description:
>> --
>> 2.30.2
>>
>>
