On 10/06/2026 11:10, Laurentiu Mihalcea wrote: > > > 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 read the rest of the spec, please. > > 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? You just took one piece skipping the rest. Also binding in the dtschema repeats that. > >> >>> >>> 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. memory-region phandles give you that, not names. You need to state why this is not sufficient. > > Thus, we can now use the more generic "memory" name for the DT nodes since we > no longer use them for the carveout names. That's wrong reason for doing this change. Also random names here change nothing. Best regards, Krzysztof
