On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 12:31:47PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > 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. I will change it to "ethernet-mac-syscon" to indicate the MMIO nature of the node. eFuse might give the wrong impression, despite the fact that the contents of the register are based on the contents of an eFuse. I will post the v3 patch with the following changes: 1. Rename "cpsw-mac-efuse" as "ethernet-mac-syscon" 2. Rename "cpsw_mac_efuse" as "cpsw_mac_syscon" Regards, Siddharth.
