On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 17:36:43 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 06/07/2022 17:27, Marek Behún wrote:
> > 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', ...
>
> Thanks Marek for detailed explanation.
> The cases above rather trigger my comments and this one here, after
> Pali's explanation, do not fit them. pld is a generic class of a device,
> so it is okay here. cpld probably as well (although one could argue that
> it is a subset of pld, so the generic name is pld, but then one would
> say fpga also should be called pld). For me it does not have to be bus,
> just don't want mv88e6xxx or any other vendor/model names. Therefore
> cpld is fine.
What about cpld-bus? It is used as a bus (simple-bus compatible) and
would work with the *-bus pattern in dt-schema.
Marek
