On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 13:19:12 +0200
Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 July 2022 13:15:07 Marek Behún wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 17:59:28 +0200
> > Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > +examples:
> > > + - |
> > > + #include <dt-bindings/leds/common.h>
> > > +
> > > + cpld@3,0 {
> >
> > The generic node name should be just "bus". That it is a CPLD
> > implementation should come from compatible string.
>
> Sorry, I do not understand why "bus". Why other memory chips are named
> e.g. "nand" or "nor" and not "bus" too?
As far as I understand this is because that is the preferred name for
busses and this is a bus, since there is also the simple-bus compatible.
> By this logic should not be _every_ node called just "bus"? Hm... and
> are names needed at all then?
:-)
The schema
https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema/blob/main/dtschema/schemas/simple-bus.yaml
allows for different names (soc|axi|ahb|*-bus) to avoid warnings on
existing old dts files.
The preferred way is to not have the implementation in nodename,
similar to how we use 'switch' instead of 'mv88e6xxx', or
'ethernet-phy' instead of 'mv88e151x', or 'led-controller', ...
I wasn't there when people started requesting for this to be that way,
but I guess it makes some sense to make it more readable and less
redundant (the generic name in nodename and the implementation in
compatible string...).
Marek
