From: Alex Elder <elder@riscstar.com>
To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev
Cc: conor+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, robh@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] arm64: dts: qcom: monaco-evk-ifp-mezzanine: use dev for device nodes
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2026 13:18:25 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5fdaa7b9-19ed-4947-8ef2-040287e2860a@riscstar.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260901175445.0142A1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org>
On 9/1/26 12:54 PM, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> New issues:
> - [Medium] Mismatch between the commit title and the patch implementation regarding the new node name.
This was indeed a mistake. I will update to say "use pci"
rather than "use dev" in the title.
As an aside... I initially tried using "dev" for these nodes.
The reason was that of_pci_make_dev_node() uses that convention
for non-bridge nodes. This was introduced by commit 407d1a51921e9
("PCI: Create device tree node for bridge"), and I haven't yet
gone to see if there was discussion about that choice when that
patch was out for review.
However DTC complains if a node is not named "pci" or "pcie",
so I went back to using "pci" for these endpoint nodes instead.
I personally think dynamically-generated devicetree content should
honor the same conventions and restrictions used for static
devicetree files. There isn't an automated way to do that though.
I was thinking of following up with a proposed change to
of_pci_make_dev_node() to at least use "pci" rather than "dev"
for non-bridge nodes, but I'm not sure that's the right thing
to do.
Comments welcome.
-Alex
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-01 18:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-01 17:20 [PATCH 0/5] arm64: dts: qcom: use pci for device nodes Alex Elder
2026-09-01 17:20 ` [PATCH 1/5] arm64: dts: qcom: qcs6490-rb3gen2: " Alex Elder
2026-09-01 17:39 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-01 17:45 ` Alex Elder
2026-09-01 20:05 ` Rob Herring
2026-09-02 12:51 ` Alex Elder
2026-09-02 16:53 ` Rob Herring
2026-09-02 18:40 ` Alex Elder
2026-09-01 17:20 ` [PATCH 2/5] arm64: dts: qcom: qcs6490-rb3gen2-industrial-mezzanine: " Alex Elder
2026-09-01 17:34 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-01 17:20 ` [PATCH 3/5] arm64: dts: qcom: lemans-evk-ifp-mezzanine: " Alex Elder
2026-09-01 17:49 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-01 17:20 ` [PATCH 4/5] arm64: dts: qcom: monaco-evk-ifp-mezzanine: use dev " Alex Elder
2026-09-01 17:54 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-01 18:18 ` Alex Elder [this message]
2026-09-01 17:20 ` [PATCH 5/5] arm64: dts: qcom: qcs6490-thundercomm-minipc-g1iot: " Alex Elder
2026-09-01 18:03 ` sashiko-bot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5fdaa7b9-19ed-4947-8ef2-040287e2860a@riscstar.com \
--to=elder@riscstar.com \
--cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox