On 21/11/2023 17:04, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 1:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 21/11/2023 12:55, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>> device-tree specification v0.4. Chapter 2.2.1/Table 2.1 is describing much more >>>>> valid characters for node names. >>>>> It means above description is not accurate or DT spec should be updated. >>>> >>>> Spec allows way to much. dtc doesn't. >>>> One thing is the spec, second >>>> thing is coding style. >>> >>> From my point of view spec is primary source of truth. If spec is saying name >>> can use upper case then I can use it. If upper case is not >>> recommended/deprecated because of whatever reason spec should be updated to >>> reflect it. >>> I know that DTC is reporting other issues but isn't it the right way to reflect >>> it back to the spec? >> >> Then why aren't you putting Linux Coding Style into C spec? I do not see >> any relation between specification of the language and the coding style >> chosen for given project. >> >> Zephyr can go with upper-case. Why it should be disallowed by the spec? > > I thought there was only One DT to bind them all? > IMHO it would be better to align DT usage of Zephyr and Linux (and > anything else). I actually don't know what Zephyr decides, but used it as example that it might want different coding style. Just like C standard allows to have all variables (including local ones) upper-case, we do not have such coding style. And no one proposes to update C spec to match Linux coding style. :) Best regards, Krzysztof
