On Wednesday 06 July 2022 17:36:43 Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > 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. Exactly. cpld, fpga, nor, nand, soc... all of them are not real buses. simple-bus here is just name invented by device tree and without which existing kernel drivers refuse to work. > > > > 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