On 22.06.2022 16:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 22/06/2022 16:36, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 22.06.2022 15:43, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 02:33:02PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> On 22.06.2022 06:12, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>>
>>>>> +&qup2_i2c5 {
>>>>> + clock-frequency = <400000>;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>>> + pinctrl-0 = <&qup2_i2c5_default>, <&kybd_default>, <&tpad_default>;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + status = "okay";
>>>>> +
>>>> I think all device DTs generally have 'status = "okay"' at the beginning. Should we change that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, quite the opposite, status go at the end.
>> Then all other device DTs should be updated, as in dts/qcom/
>> everybody keeps it first in non-SoC/PMIC files.
>
> The word "should" is a bit too much here, but I agree, we can update all
> of them to match one, chosen approach.
>
> However the location for "status" property is more important for the
> definition of nodes in DTSI, because it's the least important piece
> there and also kind of expected - here go properties + I disable it. For
> me this is more important.
>
> For node redefinition in DTS, I see benefits in two approaches:
> 1. Let me first enable the node and then configure it.
> 2. Let me configure the node and enable it.
I looked around non-qcom device trees and it looks like the common
consensus is 2. Although I personally visually prefer 1. and it's
been used in all qcom arm64 DTs to date, I don't think there are any
blockers for us to switch to 1. going forward to keep it consistent.
That's if we want to clean up the existing ones, as changing the rules
and not applying that to the older files will make for a huge mess as
time goes on and will unnecessarily prolong the review process (as
existing DTs are commonly a source of reference and people make
certain choices based on those).
I don't think the DTS specification or the Linux docs explicitly which
one to choose though.
Konrad
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
