Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 05/12] dt-bindings: net: dsa: add bindings for Renesas RZ/N1 Advanced 5 port switch

From: Rob Herring <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 13:53:07 -0500

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 02:41:11PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
> Le Wed, 18 May 2022 15:05:03 +0300,
> Vladimir Oltean <[email-masked]> a écrit :
> 
> > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 08:59:24PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 06:33:37PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:  
> > > > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 10:22:21AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:  
> > > > > > +patternProperties:
> > > > > > +  "^ethernet-ports$":  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Move to 'properties', not a pattern.
> > > > > 
> > > > > With that,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <[email-masked]>  
> > > > 
> > > > Even if it should have been "^(ethernet-)?ports$"?  
> > > 
> > > Why? Allowing 'ports' is for existing users. New ones don't need the 
> > > variability and should use just 'ethernet-ports'.
> > > 
> > > Rob  
> > 
> > Yeah, ok, somehow the memo that new DSA drivers shouldn't support "ports"
> > didn't reach me. They invariably will though, since the DSA framework is
> > the main parser of the property, and that is shared by both old and new
> > drivers.
> 
> Should also the subnodes of "ethernet-ports" use the
> "ethernet-port@[0-9]*" naming ? Or keeping the existing pattern is ok
> (ie "^(ethernet-)?port@[0-4]$") ?

I prefer the former, but care less. The whole reason for 'ethernet-' 
prefix is to make this distinct from the graph binding that uses ports 
and port.

Rob