On 22.06.2022 17:37, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 05:30:24PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >> On 22.06.2022 17:26, Johan Hovold wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 05:10:50PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>>> 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: > >>>>>>> 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. >>> >>> Right, and this is the argument for keeping status last, something which >>> is well defined. >>> >>> If you look at some of the qcom dtsi it's hard to determine whether a >>> node is disabled or not because the status property does not actually go >>> "first" but is rather typically mixed up somewhere in the middle (or >>> upper part) of nodes. >>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> So for consistency, just put status last everywhere (dtsi and dts) and >>> be done with it. >> That works. > > Actually, it looks like a lot of the qcom dtsi already do this too (i.e. > put status last). The dts may be more inconsistent on this matter > judging from a quick look. Yes, as I mentioned this concerns the device-specific trees, as the includable ones are (or well, should have been made) fine. Konrad > >>>> 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. >>> >>> You mean inconsistent with the majority of dts? ;) >> Not like anything involving Qualcomm was ever consistent or compliant >> with the majority :D > > Heh. :) > > Johan
