Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] dt-bindings: Add support for export-symbols node

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 17/08/2025 10:18, Ayush Singh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hardware:
>>>>     i2c0 from SoC --------- connector 1, I2C A signals
>>>>     i2c1 from SoC --------- connector 1, I2C B signals
>>>>
>>>>     connector1 {
>>>>         export-symbols {
>>>> 	  i2c_a = <&i2c0>;
>>>> 	  i2c_b = <&i2c1>;
>>>>         };
>>>>     };
>>>>
>>>> In order to avoid the coding style issue, this could be replace
>>>> with:
>>>>    connector1 {
>>>>         export-symbols {
>>>> 	  symbol-names = "i2c_a", "i2c_b";
>>>> 	  symbols = <&i2c0>, <&i2c1>;
>>>>         };
>>>>     };
>>>>
>>>> Krzysztof, Rob, do you think this could be accepted ?
>>>>
>>>> Ayush, David, do you thing this could be easily implemented in fdtoverlay ?
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Hervé
>>>>
>>> Well, it is possible.
>>>
>>> However, on connectors like pb2 header, there will be 50-100 export
>>> symbols. So it will start becoming difficult to maintain.
>>
>> And the first syntax solves this how? I don't see the practical difference.
> 
> 
> Well, I was more worried about matching which phandle belongs to which 
> symbol easily. Let us assume that 2 symbols will be in each line (after 
> accounting for the indention and 80 char limit) and we have 70 symbols, 
> so 35 lines. To check which phandle belongs to the 2nd symbol on line 
> 25th line of  symbol-names, well, you would at the best case need to 
> have something like relative line numbers in your editor. Then you know 
> that the 35th line from the current one is where you need to look.
> 
> In the current syntax, the symbol name and phandle are on the same line. 
> So well, easy to see which symbols refers to which phandle.

OK, that's valid point. Any ideas how to solve it without introducing
underscores for properties?

Best regards,
Krzysztof