On Wed Jul 9, 2025 at 4:18 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 09/07/2025 13:17, Diederik de Haas wrote:
>>>>  		compatible = "gpio-leds";
>>>>  		pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>> @@ -127,6 +140,12 @@ eth_phy0_reset_pin: eth-phy0-reset-pin {
>>>>  		};
>>>>  	};
>>>>  
>>>> +	gpio-keys {
>>>> +		gpio4_a0_k1: gpio4-a0-k1 {
>>>
>>> Are you sure that this passes checks?
>> 
>> If it's about the 'weird' name/label, it is what is used in the
>> schematic document I have and I asked Heiko (on IRC) if using
>> ``reset_button_pin: gpio4-a0-k1`` would not be better. That would make
>> it more descriptive while also having the schematic traceability in it.
>> The answer was no, use the form I used in this patch.
>> 
>> Am I missing checks I should've done as well?
> I meant that usually nodes, including pin controller mux/config nodes,
> have specific prefixes or suffixes. Other cases have here as well. Your
> does not.

I agree I've done it inconsistent with how I did the other pinctrl
nodes, so I should've added the '-pin' suffix. For consistency.

I've been wondering whether there are rules for naming [1], both for the
grouping and the node names. Some DTS files use a '-pin' suffix, others
don't. And it's not uncommon to see both variants in the same dts file.

One of the examples I looked at was ``rk3568-qnap-ts433.dts``. While it
uses 'keys' as grouping node, I went with 'gpio-keys' as that was used
more often (in other files). While the gmac0/keys/leds subnodes under
``&pinctrl`` use the '-pin' suffix, the pmic/usb subnodes do not.
(and I just noticed 'hdd4_led-pin' should be 'hdd4-led-pin')

I'd love to know/learn if there are actual rules for these things, but
I don't know them.

Cheers,
  Diederik

[1] https://lists.sr.ht/~diederik/pine64-discuss/%3CDAN429FK06XR.3G8JK8OMGTRKN@cknow.org%3E