On 20:53-20200910, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 20:28, Nishanth Menon [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 19:57-20200910, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
[...]

quoted

+  wakeup-source:
+    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag
+
+patternProperties:
+  "^(hog-[0-9]+|.+-hog(-[0-9]+)?)$":

I wonder if "hog" is too generic and might clash with "something-hog" in
the future?

This pattern is already used in
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/fsl-imx-gpio.yaml. It will
match only children and so far it did not find any other nodes in ARM
and ARM64 dts. I don't expect clashes. Also the question is then - if
one adds a child of GPIO expander named "foobar-hog" and it is not a
GPIO hog, then what is it?

Probably a nitpick.. but then,.. I have'nt seen us depend on hierarchy
for uniqueness of naming.. we choose for example "bus" no matter where
in the hierarchy it falls in, as long it is a bus.. etc.. same argument
holds good for properties as well.. "gpio-hog;" is kinda redundant if
you think of it for a compatible that is already gpio ;)..

I did'nt mean to de-rail the discussion, but was curious what the DT
maintainers think..

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3  1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel