On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 08:42, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Krzysztof, > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 8:54 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 20:28, Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 19:57-20200910, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > [...] > > > > + wakeup-source: > > > > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag > > > > + > > > > +patternProperties: > > > > + "^(hog-[0-9]+|.+-hog(-[0-9]+)?)$": > > > > > > I wonder if "hog" is too generic and might clash with "something-hog" in > > > the future? > > > > This pattern is already used in > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/fsl-imx-gpio.yaml. It will > > match only children and so far it did not find any other nodes in ARM > > and ARM64 dts. I don't expect clashes. Also the question is then - if > > one adds a child of GPIO expander named "foobar-hog" and it is not a > > GPIO hog, then what is it? > > Perhaps you didn't find any other nodes as children of pca953x > controllers? There shouldn't be.. unless one makes some i2c-gpio controller under such GPIO expander. But now it wouldn't be instantiated as expander is not a bus. > There are other hog nodes in other types of GPIO controllers. Typically > they're named after the purpose, e.g. "wifi-disable", "i2c3_mux_oe_n", > "pcie_sata_switch", "lcd0_mux". > > IMHO it's a hog if it contains a "gpio-hog" property, regardless of node > naming. Yes. The question is then whether to expect the "hog" in name. Just like we expect for all other device nodes to represent the class. Best regards, Krzysztof
