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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Tue, Jun 09, 2026 at 11:33:03AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 at 11:06, Frank Li <Frank.li at oss.nxp.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 09, 2026 at 10:40:06AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > > [You don't often get email from mathieu.poirier at linaro.org. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 05, 2026 at 04:36:18AM -0700, Laurentiu Mihalcea wrote:
> > > > From: Laurentiu Mihalcea <laurentiu.mihalcea at 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.
> > >
> > > I don't see what is so restrictive in using the node name of the reserved-memory
> > > regions.  Function of_reserved_mem_region_to_resource() is already doing all the
> > > parsing, packaging everything in a neat and easy to use "struct resource".  What
> > > will you gain with this new "memory-region-names" that can't be done with the
> > > current solution?
> >
> > DT Binding check can't find such wrong if node name is not what expected.
> > Binding can't restrict memory's node name because there ware not specific
> > compatible string for it.
> >
> 
> But what "wrong" could that be, and what kind of restriction are you
> hoping to enforce?  What specific problem are you hoping to solve?
> 
> I'll wait to see what the DT people think about this - I personally
> don't see the value in it.

I see no point in this commit, but maybe because the commit msg is just
misleading. It mixes node names with names for phandles which are two
separate things.

Plus this change actually makes nothing - no names are restricted to any
meaningful values!

Best regards,
Krzysztof