Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: fpga: Convert bridge binding to yaml

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 1/9/24 09:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 09/01/2024 04:53, Xu Yilun wrote:
On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 10:16:17AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:


On 1/8/24 10:09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 05/01/2024 17:04, Michal Simek wrote:
Convert the generic fpga bridge DT binding to json-schema.

Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxx>

+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: FPGA Bridge
+
+maintainers:
+  - Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxx>
+
+properties:
+  $nodename:
+    pattern: "^fpga-bridge(@.*)?$"

Not sure, but maybe we need to allow fpga-bridge-1? Could we have more
than one bridge on given system?

Yilun: Any comment on this?

We can have more bridges, but IIUC people use fpga-bridge@0, fpga-bridge@0
to identify them. So the expression is OK to me.

So you claim unit address thus reg with some sort of bus address is a
requirement? Then "?" is not correct in that pattern.

I expect it is about that people are using fpga-bridge@0 but bridge is not on the bus. Yilun said that reg property in altr,socfpga-fpga2sdram-bridge.yaml is optional which means no reg property no @XXX in node name. That's why I think that expression is correct. If there are more bridges without reg property then I expect we need to get more examples to align expression.

Thanks,
Michal




[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux