On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 9:54 AM Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:57 PM Rob Herring [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 10:52 PM Viresh Kumar [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
+ description: |
+ Exactly one node describing the virtio device. The name of the node isn't
+ significant but its phandle can be used to by a user of the virtio device.
+
+ compatible:
+ pattern: "^virtio,[0-9a-f]+$"
DID is only 4 chars? If so, "^virtio,[0-9a-f]{1,4}$"
Any opinion on whether this should have any namespace prefix (or infix, I guess)
after "virtio,"?
I previously suggested making it "virtio,device[0-9a-f]{1,4}$", which would
make it clearer that the following digits are the device ID rather
than something
else we might define in the future. Viresh picked this version because it's
somewhat more consistent with other subsystems.
I'm fine either way, though I do find just a number a bit strange. So
I'd lean toward adding 'device' or even just a 'd'.
BTW, what happens if/when the device protocol is rev'ed? A new DID or
is there a separate revision that's discoverable?
Rob