On 6/10/2026 3:22 AM, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 02:10:37AM -0700, 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 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?
>
> Please see
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAL_JsqKRW-=er+DCTob0HmQv9OyVt7yiej-Yht6UR-mcW=l...@mail.gmail.com/
Thanks for the link, Francesco! Things are a bit clearer now. Based on this and
the
comments I've received so far, I'll drop the binding and rproc driver-related
changes
in V3.
