Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-131250-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 16:13:46 +0530
From: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@ti.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
CC: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@ti.com>, <afd@ti.com>, <nm@ti.com>,
        <vigneshr@ti.com>, <kristo@kernel.org>, <robh@kernel.org>,
        <krzk+dt@kernel.org>, <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <srk@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: ti: k3-am62p: use eFuse MAC Address for
 CPSW3G Port 1
Message-ID: <55d82eb2-faab-4019-ab9c-55063bb4849e@ti.com>
References: <20240404081845.622707-1-s-vadapalli@ti.com>
 <18eb0e55-38ad-44f9-90b7-1917d8c0d5bb@linaro.org>
 <75b53dda-23aa-4915-944a-4d9a619bd165@ti.com>
 <903ad855-ab26-4ef3-80bd-249917056188@linaro.org>
 <a0df1035-8616-413d-9058-e6163bdf06cc@ti.com>
 <e80f2073-d5b5-40b2-9a48-bbe29e84d17c@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e80f2073-d5b5-40b2-9a48-bbe29e84d17c@linaro.org>

On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 12:31:47PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 04/04/2024 12:16, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote:
> >>> I was following the convention that other mfd-syscon compatible nodes
> >>> seemed to be using:
> >>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/41bccc98fb7931d63d03f326a746ac4d429c1dd3/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi#L502
> >>> The node is:
> >>> dss_oldi_io_ctrl: dss-oldi-io-ctrl@41e0
> >>> corresponding to the compatible:
> >>> "ti,am654-dss-oldi-io-ctrl"
> >>> which was added by commit:
> >>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/cb523495ee2a5938fbdd30b8a35094d386c55c12
> >>
> >> So if that one was wrong, then what? I don't know really what type of
> >> device is it, but just because one contributor called it that way, does
> >> not mean you should keep going. Maybe investigate why that contributor
> >> did not decide to follow Devicetree spec recommendation?
> > 
> > Yes, it doesn't justify the convention. I seem to have picked a wrong
> > example when figuring out the convention for naming the node. I plan to
> > name it as:
> > ethernet-mac-efuse
> > while retaining the label "cpsw_mac_efuse" since CPSW is the name of the
> > Ethernet Switch on the SoC. Please let me know if it is acceptable. I
> > will post the v3 patch based on your feedback.
> 
> Label is fine, there is no restriction/guideline on labels, so choose
> descriptive or something useful for you. Just the node name. If this is
> syscon, then usually system-controller. If this is efuse, then maybe
> efuse, even though previously I was looking at this more as a syscon.

I will change it to "ethernet-mac-syscon" to indicate the MMIO nature of
the node. eFuse might give the wrong impression, despite the fact that
the contents of the register are based on the contents of an eFuse.

I will post the v3 patch with the following changes:
1. Rename "cpsw-mac-efuse" as "ethernet-mac-syscon"
2. Rename "cpsw_mac_efuse" as "cpsw_mac_syscon"

Regards,
Siddharth.