Am Donnerstag, 16. November 2023, 21:23:20 CET schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> On 16/11/2023 21:03, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
>
> >>> I guess the only thing I do have questions about is the part
> >>>
> >>>> +4. All properties with values
> >>>> +5. Boolean properties
> >>>
> >>> Is there a rationale for it? Because with it things like regulator-*
> >>> properties then end up in two different blocks.
> >>
> >> Good point. It is only a matter of style that this:
> >>
> >> foo {
> >> compatible = "foo";
> >> reg = <0x1>;
> >> clocks = <&clk>;
> >> wakeup-source;
> >> key-autorepeat;
> >> }
> >>
> >> looks better to me than:
> >>
> >>
> >> foo {
> >> compatible = "foo";
> >> reg = <0x1>;
> >> key-autorepeat;
> >> wakeup-source;
> >> clocks = <&clk>;
> >> }
> >>
> >> But you have good point that similar properties should be usually
> >> grouped together.
> >>
> >> About which regulator properties are you thinking now? You mean the
> >> supplies or the provider?
> >
> > I was thinking about the provider. There are
> > regulator-min-microvolt = <>;
> > and friends, but also
> > regulator-boot-on;
>
> These are in regulator provider nodes and above guideline would keep
> logical order:
>
> regulator-name = "vdd_kfc";
> regulator-min-microvolt = <800000>;
> regulator-max-microvolt = <1500000>;
> regulator-always-on;
> regulator-boot-on;
>
> regulator-state-mem {
> regulator-off-in-suspend;
> };
>
> What exactly would be here misordered?
going with the vcc5v0_host regulator of the rk3588-quartzpro64 and
+1. compatible
+2. reg
+3. ranges
+4. All properties with values
+5. Boolean properties
+6. status (if applicable)
+7. Child nodes
we'd end up with
vcc5v0_host: vcc5v0-host-regulator {
/* 1. */ compatible = "regulator-fixed";
/* 4. */ gpio = <&gpio4 RK_PB0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
pinctrl-names = "default";
pinctrl-0 = <&vcc5v0_host_en>;
regulator-min-microvolt = <5000000>;
regulator-max-microvolt = <5000000>;
regulator-name = "vcc5v0_host";
vin-supply = <&vcc5v0_usb>;
/* 5. */ enable-active-high;
regulator-always-on;
regulator-boot-on;
};
which I find somewhat counter-intuitive ;-) .
Heiko
