Hi Heiko,
On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 8:38 PM Heiko Stübner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Am Freitag, 17. November 2023, 15:03:38 CET schrieb Andrew Davis:
> > On 11/16/23 2:33 PM, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> > > Am Donnerstag, 16. November 2023, 21:23:20 CET schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> > >> On 16/11/2023 21:03, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> > > 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;
> > > };
> > >
> >
> > How about grouping like properties (defined in the same schema),
> > then sorting within that group. Would also allow for defining
> > where to add spacing.
> >
> > 1. compatible
> > 2. reg
> > 3. ranges
> > 4. All property groups
> > 4.1 Properties with values
> > 4.2 Boolean properties
> > 4.3 Separating space
> > 6. status (if applicable)
> > 7. Child nodes
> >
> > Your node then would look like we expect:
> >
> > vcc5v0_host: vcc5v0-host-regulator {
> > /* 1 */ compatible = "regulator-fixed";
> >
> > /* 4.1 */ pinctrl-names = "default";
> > /* 4.1 */ pinctrl-0 = <&vcc5v0_host_en>;
> > /* 4.3 */
> > /* 4.1 */ regulator-min-microvolt = <5000000>;
> > /* 4.1 */ regulator-max-microvolt = <5000000>;
> > /* 4.1 */ regulator-name = "vcc5v0_host";
> > /* 4.2 */ regulator-always-on;
> > /* 4.2 */ regulator-boot-on;
> > /* 4.2 */ enable-active-high;
> > /* 4.3 */
> > /* 4.1 */ gpio = <&gpio4 RK_PB0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> > ...
> > };
>
> I'm really not sure about adding big sets of rules.
> In the above example you'd also need to define which schema has a higher
> priority? ;-)
>
>
> When I started with Rockchip stuff, I also had some fancy way of sorting
> elements in mind that was really intuitive to myself :-) .
> Over time I realized that it was quite complex - especially when I had to
> explain it to people.
Feel familiar.
> There are definite advantages for having compatible + reg + status in
> fixed positions, as it helps going over a whole dt to spot the huge
> mistakes (accidentially disabled, wrong address), but for the rest a
> simple alphabetical sorting is easiest to explain to people :-) .
>
> And alphabetic elements are also easier on my eyes.
Alphabetical does break logical ordering and grouping.
Apart from compatible/reg order, on Renesas SoCs we usually
also have the clocks/resets/power-domains block.
> I just think having a short clean set of rules like Krzysztof proposed,
> is easier to follow and "enforce" and also most likely doesn't deter
> people from contributing, if mainline work is not their main occupation.
And in reality, most of this is created by copy-and-corrupt^Wmodify...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
