On 09/01/2024 09:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>>> +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. > > If we allow node name without unit address, thus not being part of any > bus, then the only question is whether it is possible to have system > with more than two FPGA bridges. If the answer is "yes", which I think > is the case, then the pattern should already allow it: > > (@[0-9a-f]+|-[0-9]+)? Or better go with what I used recently for narrowed choices: (@.*|-([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]+))? Best regards, Krzysztof
