On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 5:25 PM Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 16.03.2021 23:31, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 08:00:25AM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> >> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> The old regex allowed only 1 character to follow the "led-" prefix which
> >> was most likely just an overlook.
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> >> Fix it and while at it allow dashes in
> >> node names. It allows more meaningful names and it helpful e.g. when
> >> having the same function name with 2 different colors. For example:
> >> 1. led-power-white
> >> 2. led-power-blue
> >
> > No, node names are supposed to be generic and reflect the class of
> > device.
>
> There was some extra discussion on this patch that has ended up with a question about numbering nodes.
>
> Current binding assumes that nodes should be numbered with independent suffix numbers like:
> led-0 { };
> led-1 { };
> led-2 { };
>
> Do you think this could / should be improved somehow?
No, we have other ways for meaningful names (label, color, function, etc.).
> One option I was thinking about was using:
> led@0 { };
> led@5 { };
> where numbers ("0", "5") should match GPIO numbers.
>
> Is that a valid solution and does it improve things to make it worth it?
What if you have <gpioa 1> and <gpiob 1>?
The cells in a consumer for a provider are opaque to the consumer.
Rob
