diff mbox series

[05/12] dt-bindings: mtd: onenand: Mention the expected node name

Message ID 20221028235933.934850-6-miquel.raynal@bootlin.com (mailing list archive)
State Not Applicable
Headers show
Series Improve MTD bindings | expand

Commit Message

Miquel Raynal Oct. 28, 2022, 11:59 p.m. UTC
The chip node name in this driver is expected to be different and should
be prefixed with onenand instead of the regular "flash" string, so
mention it.

Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

Comments

Rob Herring (Arm) Oct. 31, 2022, 8:54 p.m. UTC | #1
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 01:59:26AM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> The chip node name in this driver is expected to be different and should
> be prefixed with onenand instead of the regular "flash" string, so
> mention it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml
> index a953f7397c40..8a79ad300216 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml
> @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@ description:
>    as child nodes of the GPMC controller.
>  
>  properties:
> +  $nodename:
> +    pattern: "^onenand@[0-9],[0,9]$"

I don't think it is worth enforcing node names that we 
haven't defined in the spec. Wouldn't 'nand-controller' be appropriate?

> +
>    compatible:
>      const: ti,omap2-onenand
>  
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 
>
Miquel Raynal Nov. 2, 2022, 4:50 p.m. UTC | #2
Hi Rob,

robh@kernel.org wrote on Mon, 31 Oct 2022 15:54:42 -0500:

> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 01:59:26AM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > The chip node name in this driver is expected to be different and should
> > be prefixed with onenand instead of the regular "flash" string, so
> > mention it.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml
> > index a953f7397c40..8a79ad300216 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml
> > @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@ description:
> >    as child nodes of the GPMC controller.
> >  
> >  properties:
> > +  $nodename:
> > +    pattern: "^onenand@[0-9],[0,9]$"  
> 
> I don't think it is worth enforcing node names that we 
> haven't defined in the spec. Wouldn't 'nand-controller' be appropriate?

Actually I've added this pattern here because there are several users in
the arm/boot/dts/ directory which use it, and the example below in this
file also uses onenand@xxx.

I can either fix the example to use nand-controller or add this pattern
(I guess "deprecated: true" would not mean anything?). What do you
prefer?

If we decide to switch to the nand-controller@ name, shall I change the
DTS as well?

Thanks,
Miquèl
Rob Herring (Arm) Nov. 2, 2022, 9:46 p.m. UTC | #3
On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 05:50:07PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> 
> robh@kernel.org wrote on Mon, 31 Oct 2022 15:54:42 -0500:
> 
> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 01:59:26AM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > > The chip node name in this driver is expected to be different and should
> > > be prefixed with onenand instead of the regular "flash" string, so
> > > mention it.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
> > > ---
> > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml | 3 +++
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml
> > > index a953f7397c40..8a79ad300216 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml
> > > @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@ description:
> > >    as child nodes of the GPMC controller.
> > >  
> > >  properties:
> > > +  $nodename:
> > > +    pattern: "^onenand@[0-9],[0,9]$"  
> > 
> > I don't think it is worth enforcing node names that we 
> > haven't defined in the spec. Wouldn't 'nand-controller' be appropriate?
> 
> Actually I've added this pattern here because there are several users in
> the arm/boot/dts/ directory which use it, and the example below in this
> file also uses onenand@xxx.
> 
> I can either fix the example to use nand-controller or add this pattern
> (I guess "deprecated: true" would not mean anything?). What do you
> prefer?
> 
> If we decide to switch to the nand-controller@ name, shall I change the
> DTS as well?

I guess I'd just leave it as you have it.

Rob
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml
index a953f7397c40..8a79ad300216 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml
@@ -15,6 +15,9 @@  description:
   as child nodes of the GPMC controller.
 
 properties:
+  $nodename:
+    pattern: "^onenand@[0-9],[0,9]$"
+
   compatible:
     const: ti,omap2-onenand