On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 17:37:44 +0100 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/11/2023 17:28, Hugo Villeneuve wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 17:19:20 +0100 > > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On 07/11/2023 17:01, Hugo Villeneuve wrote: > >>> From: Hugo Villeneuve <hvilleneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> Move reg nodes after the compatible string, to follow DT conventions. > >> > >> This is a bit of churn... like patches for checkpatch. But unlike > >> checkpatch, it's not even documented. > > > > Hi, > > I do not really understand your point or if I must change > > something... > > > > But looking at a lot of dts, the reg property is always following the > > compatible string, so I assumed it was an undocumented convention or > > best practice... > > > > Patches fixing only checkpatch --strict are usually welcomed only in > staging. But even there no one wants to deal with one patch changing one > style issue in one file. > > You are doing the same, outside of staging, but relying on undocumented > practice. Such patches are unnecessary churn. Documenting the practice > and fixing entire subsystems or groups of devices would be welcomed. > Fixing line by line some style issue is just effort for maintainers. Hi, ok, now it is more clear. I tried to search in Documentation/ or the web for DT conventions/best practices, but couldn't find anything relevant, apart from "use YAML coding style"... Maybe it would be a good thing to add a document for DT best practices eventually... Thank you, Hugo.
