On 04/04/2024 12:16, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote: >>> I was following the convention that other mfd-syscon compatible nodes >>> seemed to be using: >>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/41bccc98fb7931d63d03f326a746ac4d429c1dd3/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi#L502 >>> The node is: >>> dss_oldi_io_ctrl: dss-oldi-io-ctrl@41e0 >>> corresponding to the compatible: >>> "ti,am654-dss-oldi-io-ctrl" >>> which was added by commit: >>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/cb523495ee2a5938fbdd30b8a35094d386c55c12 >> >> So if that one was wrong, then what? I don't know really what type of >> device is it, but just because one contributor called it that way, does >> not mean you should keep going. Maybe investigate why that contributor >> did not decide to follow Devicetree spec recommendation? > > Yes, it doesn't justify the convention. I seem to have picked a wrong > example when figuring out the convention for naming the node. I plan to > name it as: > ethernet-mac-efuse > while retaining the label "cpsw_mac_efuse" since CPSW is the name of the > Ethernet Switch on the SoC. Please let me know if it is acceptable. I > will post the v3 patch based on your feedback. Label is fine, there is no restriction/guideline on labels, so choose descriptive or something useful for you. Just the node name. If this is syscon, then usually system-controller. If this is efuse, then maybe efuse, even though previously I was looking at this more as a syscon. Best regards, Krzysztof
