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

[Michal Simek]

On 1/9/24 09:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 09/01/2024 04:53, Xu Yilun wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 10:16:17AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> > > On 1/8/24 10:09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > On 05/01/2024 17:04, Michal Simek wrote:
> > > > > Convert the generic fpga bridge DT binding to json-schema.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml#
> > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > > > > +
> > > > > +title: FPGA Bridge
> > > > > +
> > > > > +maintainers:
> > > > > +  - Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +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.

Thanks,
Michal