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
