Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dt-bindings: remoteproc: imx_rproc: document optional "memory-region-names"

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 10/06/2026 11:10, Laurentiu Mihalcea wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/10/2026 12:37 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 05, 2026 at 04:36:18AM -0700, Laurentiu Mihalcea wrote:
>>> From: Laurentiu Mihalcea <laurentiu.mihalcea@nxp.com>
>>>
>>> The names of the carveout regions are derived using the names of the
>>> reserved memory devicetree nodes, which are referenced using the
>>> "memory-region" property. This adds a restriction on the names of said
>>> devicetree nodes, often bearing specific names such as: "vdevbuffer",
>>> "vdev0vring0", "rsc-table", etc... This goes against the devicetree
>>> specification's recommendation, which states that the devicetree node
>>> names should be generic.
>>
>> No, it does not. Names like rsc-table feels exactly like DT spec is
>> asking - for a name matching purpose. Are you sure you read the spec?
> 
> Quoting from the spec:
> 
> "The name of a node should be somewhat generic, reflecting the function of the
> device and not its precise programming model"

And read the rest of the spec, please.

> 
> and looking at the examples provided in "2.2.2 Generic Names Recommendation",
> wouldn't "memory" be a more appropriate choice for the DT node name instead of
> "rsc-table" since it's more generic, while still matching the purpose
> of the device? Or perhaps I'm interpreting this the wrong way?

You just took one piece skipping the rest. Also binding in the dtschema
repeats that.

> 
>>
>>>
>>> Fix this by documenting an additional, optional property:
>>> "memory-region-names". This way, the carveout names can use the values
>>> passed via "memory-region-names", while keeping the devicetree node
>>> names of the reserved memory regions generic.
>>
>> I don't see how anything here is fixed. memory-region-names has nothing
>> to do with node names.
> 
> The idea here is that the names of the carveout regions can now be passed
> via the "memory-region-names" property. Previously, we were using the DT
> node names for that.

memory-region phandles give you that, not names. You need to state why
this is not sufficient.

> 
> Thus, we can now use the more generic "memory" name for the DT nodes since we
> no longer use them for the carveout names.

That's wrong reason for doing this change. Also random names here change
nothing.

Best regards,
Krzysztof