On 06/07/2022 18:43, Marek Behún wrote:
> 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.
If we talk about the example - it does not use any compatible, so we are
focusing on unimportant piece. Anyway using a simple-bus compatible does
not necessarily mean it is a bus. "soc" nodes also use it, but these are
not buses.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
