[PATCH 05/12] dt-bindings: mtd: onenand: Mention the expected node name

[Miquel Raynal]

Hi Rob,

robh at kernel.org wrote on Mon, 31 Oct 2022 15:54:42 -0500:

> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 01:59:26AM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > The chip node name in this driver is expected to be different and should
> > be prefixed with onenand instead of the regular "flash" string, so
> > mention it.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal at bootlin.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml
> > index a953f7397c40..8a79ad300216 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml
> > @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@ description:
> >    as child nodes of the GPMC controller.
> >  
> >  properties:
> > +  $nodename:
> > +    pattern: "^onenand@[0-9],[0,9]$"  
> 
> I don't think it is worth enforcing node names that we 
> haven't defined in the spec. Wouldn't 'nand-controller' be appropriate?

Actually I've added this pattern here because there are several users in
the arm/boot/dts/ directory which use it, and the example below in this
file also uses onenand at xxx.

I can either fix the example to use nand-controller or add this pattern
(I guess "deprecated: true" would not mean anything?). What do you
prefer?

If we decide to switch to the nand-controller@ name, shall I change the
DTS as well?

Thanks,
Miquèl