On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 01:59:26AM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote: > The chip node name in this driver is expected to be different and should > be prefixed with onenand instead of the regular "flash" string, so > mention it. > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml > index a953f7397c40..8a79ad300216 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml > @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@ description: > as child nodes of the GPMC controller. > > properties: > + $nodename: > + pattern: "^onenand@[0-9],[0,9]$" I don't think it is worth enforcing node names that we haven't defined in the spec. Wouldn't 'nand-controller' be appropriate? > + > compatible: > const: ti,omap2-onenand > > -- > 2.34.1 > >
