Hi Pali, On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 08:35:52PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Thursday 01 December 2022 17:44:00 Rob Herring wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 06:39:02PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > I was told by Marek (CCed) that DSA port connected to CPU should have > > > label "cpu" and not "cpu<number>". Modern way for specifying CPU port is > > > by defining reference to network device, which there is already (&enet1 > > > and &enet0). So that change just "fixed" incorrect naming cpu0 and cpu1. > > > > > > So probably linux kernel does not need label = "cpu" in DTS anymore. But > > > this is not the reason to remove this property. Linux kernel does not > > > use lot of other nodes and properties too... Device tree should describe > > > hardware and not its usage in Linux. "label" property is valid in device > > > tree and it exactly describes what or where is this node connected. And > > > it may be used for other systems. > > > > > > So I do not see a point in removing "label" properties from turris1x.dts > > > file, nor from any other dts file. > > > > Well, it seems like a bit of an abuse of 'label' to me. 'label' should > > be aligned with a sticker or other identifier identifying something to a > > human. Software should never care what the value of 'label' is. > > But it already does. "label" property is used for setting (initial) > network interface name for DSA drivers. And you can try to call e.g. > git grep '"cpu"' net/dsa drivers/net/dsa to see that cpu is still > present on some dsa places (probably relict or backward compatibility > before eth reference). Can you try to eliminate the word "probably" from the information you transmit and be specific about when did the DSA binding parse or require the 'label = "cpu"' property for CPU ports in any way?
