On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 18:05:28 +0200
Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 July 2022 17:36:43 Krzysztof Kozlowski 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.
>
> Exactly. cpld, fpga, nor, nand, soc... all of them are not real buses.
>
> simple-bus here is just name invented by device tree and without which
> existing kernel drivers refuse to work.
OK, then cpld seems correct. I thought it was considered a bus in a way,
since "simple-bus" is used in compatible.
Marek
