On 6/10/2026 12:37 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2026 at 04:36:18AM -0700, Laurentiu Mihalcea wrote:
>> From: Laurentiu Mihalcea <[email protected]>
>>
>> The names of the carveout regions are derived using the names of the
>> reserved memory devicetree nodes, which are referenced using the
>> "memory-region" property. This adds a restriction on the names of said
>> devicetree nodes, often bearing specific names such as: "vdevbuffer",
>> "vdev0vring0", "rsc-table", etc... This goes against the devicetree
>> specification's recommendation, which states that the devicetree node
>> names should be generic.
>
> No, it does not. Names like rsc-table feels exactly like DT spec is
> asking - for a name matching purpose. Are you sure you read the spec?
Quoting from the spec:
"The name of a node should be somewhat generic, reflecting the function of the
device and not its precise programming model"
and looking at the examples provided in "2.2.2 Generic Names Recommendation",
wouldn't "memory" be a more appropriate choice for the DT node name instead of
"rsc-table" since it's more generic, while still matching the purpose
of the device? Or perhaps I'm interpreting this the wrong way?
>
>>
>> Fix this by documenting an additional, optional property:
>> "memory-region-names". This way, the carveout names can use the values
>> passed via "memory-region-names", while keeping the devicetree node
>> names of the reserved memory regions generic.
>
> I don't see how anything here is fixed. memory-region-names has nothing
> to do with node names.
The idea here is that the names of the carveout regions can now be passed
via the "memory-region-names" property. Previously, we were using the DT
node names for that.
Thus, we can now use the more generic "memory" name for the DT nodes since we
no longer use them for the carveout names.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
