Hi Rob, robh@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 31 Oct 2022 15:54:42 -0500: > On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 01:59:26AM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > The chip node name in this driver is expected to be different and should > > be prefixed with onenand instead of the regular "flash" string, so > > mention it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml > > index a953f7397c40..8a79ad300216 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml > > @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@ description: > > as child nodes of the GPMC controller. > > > > properties: > > + $nodename: > > + pattern: "^onenand@[0-9],[0,9]$" > > I don't think it is worth enforcing node names that we > haven't defined in the spec. Wouldn't 'nand-controller' be appropriate? Actually I've added this pattern here because there are several users in the arm/boot/dts/ directory which use it, and the example below in this file also uses onenand@xxx. I can either fix the example to use nand-controller or add this pattern (I guess "deprecated: true" would not mean anything?). What do you prefer? If we decide to switch to the nand-controller@ name, shall I change the DTS as well? Thanks, Miquèl
