Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 9 Jan 2024 09:06:52 +0100 | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: fpga: Convert bridge binding to yaml | | From | Michal Simek <> |
| |
On 1/9/24 09:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 09/01/2024 04:53, Xu Yilun wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 10:16:17AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 1/8/24 10:09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 05/01/2024 17:04, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>> Convert the generic fpga bridge DT binding to json-schema. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> >>>> >>>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml# >>>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# >>>>> + >>>>> +title: FPGA Bridge >>>>> + >>>>> +maintainers: >>>>> + - Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> >>>>> + >>>>> +properties: >>>>> + $nodename: >>>>> + pattern: "^fpga-bridge(@.*)?$" >>>> >>>> Not sure, but maybe we need to allow fpga-bridge-1? Could we have more >>>> than one bridge on given system? >>> >>> Yilun: Any comment on this? >> >> We can have more bridges, but IIUC people use fpga-bridge@0, fpga-bridge@0 >> to identify them. So the expression is OK to me. > > So you claim unit address thus reg with some sort of bus address is a > requirement? Then "?" is not correct in that pattern.
I expect it is about that people are using fpga-bridge@0 but bridge is not on the bus. Yilun said that reg property in altr,socfpga-fpga2sdram-bridge.yaml is optional which means no reg property no @XXX in node name. That's why I think that expression is correct. If there are more bridges without reg property then I expect we need to get more examples to align expression.
Thanks, Michal
|  |