Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: coresight: Update the pattern of ete node name

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 26/12/2023 02:50, Jinlong Mao wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/21/2023 4:44 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 21/12/2023 09:36, Jinlong Mao wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/21/2023 4:17 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 21/12/2023 09:15, Jinlong Mao wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/21/2023 4:12 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/12/2023 04:28, Jinlong Mao wrote:
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,embedded-trace-extension.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,embedded-trace-extension.yaml
>>>>>>>>> index f725e6940993..cbf583d34029 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,embedded-trace-extension.yaml
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,embedded-trace-extension.yaml
>>>>>>>>> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ description: |
>>>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>>>      properties:
>>>>>>>>>        $nodename:
>>>>>>>>> -    pattern: "^ete([0-9a-f]+)$"
>>>>>>>>> +    pattern: "^ete-([0-9a-f]+)$"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My concerns are not resolved. Why is it here in the first place?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ETE is acronym of embedded trace extension. The number of the name is
>>>>>>> the same as the number of the CPU it belongs to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is obvious and was not my question.

You already said it here...

>>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean why the pattern match of the node name is added here ?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, especially that it is requiring a non-generic name.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This node should not have the node name match, right ?
>>>>
>>>> Usually. For sure shouldn't be for non-generic names.
>>>>
>>> Hi Suzuki,
>>>
>>> Can we remove the pattern match of the node name and use a generic name
>>> "ete" for the ete DT nodes ?
>>
>> "ete" is not a generic name. What is generic here? It's an acronym of
>> some specific device name.
>>
> 
> The device full name is embedded trace extension. So use ETE as the name 
> here.

That's obvious and my comment was not about it. Second time... This is
my unlucky day... I said, why do you even want to enforce name which is
not generic, since the names should be generic?

I assume you read the DT specification:
https://devicetree-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/chapter2-devicetree-basics.html#generic-names-recommendation


Best regards,
Krzysztof