niedz., 2 paź 2022 o 10:00 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a): > > On 01/10/2022 17:53, Michał Grzelak wrote: > > Hi Krzysztof, > > > > Thanks for your comments and time spent on reviewing my patch. > > All of those improvements will be included in next version. > > Also, I would like to know your opinion about one. > > > >>> + > >>> + marvell,system-controller: > >>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle > >>> + description: a phandle to the system controller. > >>> + > >>> +patternProperties: > >>> + '^eth[0-9a-f]*(@.*)?$': > >> > >> The name should be "(ethernet-)?port", unless anything depends on > >> particular naming? > > > > What do you think about pattern "^(ethernet-)?eth[0-9a-f]+(@.*)?$"? > > It resembles pattern found in net/ethernet-phy.yaml like > > properties:$nodename:pattern:"^ethernet-phy(@[a-f0-9]+)?$", while > > still passing `dt_binding_check' and `dtbs_check'. It should also > > comply with your comment. > > Node names like ethernet-eth do not make much sense because they contain > redundant ethernet or eth. AFAIK, all other bindings like that call > these ethernet-ports (or sometimes shorter - ports). Unless this device > is different than all others? > IMO "^(ethernet-)?port@[0-9]+$" for the subnodes' names could be fine (as long as we don't have to modify the existing .dtsi files) - there is no dependency in the driver code on that. Best regards, Marcin
