On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 09:16:33AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > 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 This is valid usecase. > > 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 The answer is yes. > > 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]+))? It is good to me. I actually didn't know much about DTS & its Schema, thanks for all your input. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > >
