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

[Rob Herring]

On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 05:50:07PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> 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?

I guess I'd just leave it as you have it.

Rob