Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: fpga: Convert bridge binding to yaml

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

On 09/01/2024 09:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>> +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.
> 
> If we allow node name without unit address, thus not being part of any
> bus, then the only question is whether it is possible to have system
> with more than two FPGA bridges. If the answer is "yes", which I think
> is the case, then the pattern should already allow it:
> 
> (@[0-9a-f]+|-[0-9]+)?

Or better go with what I used recently for narrowed choices:

(@.*|-([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]+))?

Best regards,
Krzysztof