Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 31 May 2023 12:39:06 -0500
From:   Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
To:     "Kumar, Udit" <u-kumar1@ti.com>
CC:     Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Tero Kristo <kristo@kernel.org>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
        Nitin Yadav <n-yadav@ti.com>, Andrew Davis <afd@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200-mcu: Add mcu_secproxy
Message-ID: <20230531173906.zznrzuxfytk5feun@spied>
References: <20230530165900.47502-1-nm@ti.com>
 <20230530165900.47502-5-nm@ti.com>
 <e25936b9-d85c-dfe8-0eb1-07b51fdfff1e@ti.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <e25936b9-d85c-dfe8-0eb1-07b51fdfff1e@ti.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 22:37-20230531, Kumar, Udit wrote:
[...]
> > +	secure_proxy_mcu: mailbox@2a480000 {
> I think, we should start name as? mailbox@2a380000
> > +		compatible = "ti,am654-secure-proxy";
> > +		#mbox-cells = <1>;
> > +		reg-names = "target_data", "rt", "scfg";
> > +		reg = <0x0 0x2a480000 0x0 0x80000>,
> > +		      <0x0 0x2a380000 0x0 0x80000>,
> > +		      <0x0 0x2a400000 0x0 0x80000>;
> 
> I think, we should have increasing order for reg. Unless there is some
> strong reason to keep in this way.

Binding is defined this way - the items section in the binding
enforces the order. As a result the first reg entry(target_data)
address causes the node name.

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