reserved-memory: node naming - generic name vs binding recommendation

[Vitor Soares <ivitro@gmail.com>]

Hi,

I have a question about node naming conventions for static reserved-memory
allocations.

The reserved-memory.yaml binding recommends that node names reflect the purpose
of the node (e.g. "framebuffer" or "dma-pool"). The base Devicetree
Specification (section 2.2.1) on the other hand recommends using generic names
from its suggested list, which includes "memory", implying a "memory@<addr>"
form.

For nodes with a static allocation, is the binding's guidance to use purpose-
reflecting names the recommendation, taking precedence over the base spec's
generic "memory@" convention?

Any clarification on which convention should take precedence here would be
appreciated.

Thanks
Vitor Soares