On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 04:17:35PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 01:19:13PM +0100, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
> > Hello Krzysztof, first thanks for your review.
> >
> > Let's try to get some clarity on this with the help of Shawn.
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 01:57:38PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 08/03/2023 13:52, Philippe Schenker wrote:
> > > > From: Philippe Schenker <philippe.schenker@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Sort properties according to the following order and inside these
> > > > alphabetically.
> > > >
> > > > 1. compatible
> > > > 2. reg
> > > > 3. standard properties
> > > > 4. specific properties
> > > > 5. status
> > >
> > > Is this approved coding style for IMX DTS?
> >
> > I 100% understand your concerns here.
> >
> > With that said let me try to briefly explain the reasoning here, in
> > various threads we were asked in the past to move node around based on
> > some not 100% defined rules [0][1].
> >
> > On Sun, 2023-01-29 at 11:19 +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > >> +&usbotg1 {
> > >> + adp-disable;
> > >> + ci-disable-lpm;
> > >> + hnp-disable;
> > >> + over-current-active-low;
> > >> + pinctrl-names = "default";
> > >> + pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_usbotg1>;
> > >
> > >We generally want to put such generic properties before device specific
> > >ones.
> >
> > In addition to that we find convenient to have properties sorted
> > alphabetically when no other rule is available, it just prevents any
> > kind of discussion, minimize merge conflicts and make comparing files
> > easier.
> >
> > I also agree that the difference between "generic"/"specific" is fuzzy
> > at best.
> >
> > With all that said ...
> >
> > Shawn: What should we do? We can of course avoid any kind of re-ordering
> > from now on.
>
> We are practically asking for 1, 2 and 5 for i.MX DTS files, but pretty
> flexible for the rest.
>
> > I am fine to be very pragmatic here, no-reordering on existing DTS
> > files, newly added DTS files we discuss whatever is the reasoning of the
> > reviewer/maintainer on a case-by-case basis.
>
> Sounds good to me! While I personally like your ordering, I do not want
> it to churn the existing DTS files.
Agreed.
>
> I'm happy to take this patch as a special case though :)
Philippe just rebased all the stuff getting rid of the sort commit :-)
No special case needed, he will send an updated series in a hour.
Thanks a lot,
Francesco
