On 06/07/2022 17:27, Marek Behún wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 13:19:12 +0200
> Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 06 July 2022 13:15:07 Marek Behún wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 17:59:28 +0200
>>> Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx> 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', ...
Thanks Marek for detailed explanation.
The cases above rather trigger my comments and this one here, after
Pali's explanation, do not fit them. pld is a generic class of a device,
so it is okay here. cpld probably as well (although one could argue that
it is a subset of pld, so the generic name is pld, but then one would
say fpga also should be called pld). For me it does not have to be bus,
just don't want mv88e6xxx or any other vendor/model names. Therefore
cpld is fine.
>
> 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...).
Best regards,
Krzysztof
