> On 19. 8. 2022, at 15:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 19/08/2022 15:58, Martin Povišer wrote: >> >>> On 19. 8. 2022, at 14:54, Martin Povišer <povik+lin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> +properties: >>> + compatible: >>> + items: >>> + - enum: >>> + - apple,t8103-mca >>> + - apple,t6000-mca >> >> Since it was brought up last time but I didn’t respond: the >> nonalphabetical order is as the chips were introduced (and >> matches other schemas). > > Sure, just keep that order for future compatibles as well - so always > put them according to verifiable time of market introduction... > > This is very poor reason, instead of alphabetical order. Even worse > reason is repeating wrong pattern just because someone else did it. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > I don’t see it nearly as clear-cut. Adding to the end seems pretty foolproof too, but OK, next submission will have it alphabet. ordered. Best, Martin
