On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 16:38:41 +0100 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi, (CC:ing Maxime for potential historic context) > On 21/12/2023 16:07, Andre Przywara wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 15:45:17 +0100 > > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > >> On 21/12/2023 15:06, Andre Przywara wrote: > >>> The sunxi.yaml file, holding all known board compatible names for > >>> devices with Allwinner SoCs, is apparently sorted alphabetically, by the > >>> "description" entry. However there are a few outliers. > >>> > >>> Re-order the entries to get a strict alphabetical ordering, so that: > >>> $ grep description: sunxi.yaml | sort -fc > >>> returns empty-handed. There is no change otherwise. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx> > >> > >> What was the existing order? Aren't this just shuffling again things? > > > > It assume the intention was to order "alphabetically by description", but > > there were some out-of-place entries which apparently slipped through > > review. > > > > Shall I add a comment at the top to note the order? > > Some files like this are ordered by compatible, some by class or family > of devices, so first you need to be sure there is no existing order. That's what I did, of course: - there is no order in the compatible strings, not in the most specific name, nor in the fallback names - new boards have always been added somewhere in the middle, never at the end, so it's not "oldest boards first" - the SoCs used in the boards are all over the place, so it's not sorted by SoC - I see no rhyme or reason in the board types: we have tablets, devboards, TV boxes all mixed up happily. But: from the 197 listed boards, a movement of 13 boards, often by just one position, makes the list ordered by description. So I assumed this was the intention, and fixed the list accordingly. Happy to stand corrected if the maintainers have a better idea. Cheers, Andre
