On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 4:47 AM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 12:52:33PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > TBC, 'protocol@.*' would not allow anything but the properties defined > > in the /$defs/protocol-node. So [1] would throw errors without a > > schema addition. > > Right I clearly missed that, somehow I assumed it would allow. > > > We should either do that along with dropping 'protocol@18' or we keep > > protocol 0x18 node and add all other providerless protocols. I don't > > think we need the latter to just check unit-address vs. reg. > > I only argument today it to allow protocol specific transport. So we could > delay addition of it until someone needs that way. So far we haven't seen > anyone using it other than performance(even that is not needed with the > introduction of fast channels that are auto discoverable in relatively > newer versions of the spec). I failed to think about 'protocol@.*' would match on every protocol, so we have to list them explicitly: '^protocol@(18|xx|yy|zz)$' Anyways, I think the conclusion is the patch should stay as-is and so I've applied it. Rob