Hi Diederik,
Am Donnerstag, 4. Juli 2024, 11:38:51 CEST schrieb Diederik de Haas:
> Thanks for submitting this. A quick scan indicates it should work with a
> (recent) Debian kernel OOTB :-)
>
> On Wednesday, 3 July 2024 23:05:24 CEST Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> > +&sdhci {
> > + bus-width = <8>;
> > + no-sdio;
> > + no-sd;
> > + non-removable;
> > + max-frequency = <200000000>;
> > + mmc-hs400-1_8v;
> > + mmc-hs400-enhanced-strobe;
> > + mmc-hs200-1_8v;
> > + status = "okay";
> > +};
> > +
> > +&sdmmc {
> > + max-frequency = <200000000>;
> > + no-sdio;
> > + no-mmc;
> > + bus-width = <4>;
> > + cap-mmc-highspeed;
> > + cap-sd-highspeed;
> > + disable-wp;
> > + sd-uhs-sdr104;
> > + vmmc-supply = <&vcc_3v3_s3>;
> > + vqmmc-supply = <&vccio_sd_s0>;
> > + pinctrl-names = "default";
> > + pinctrl-0 = <&sdmmc_bus4 &sdmmc_clk &sdmmc_cmd &sdmmc_det>;
> > + status = "okay";
> > +};
> > +
> > +/* M.2 E-KEY */
> > +&sdio {
> > + broken-cd;
> > + bus-width = <4>;
> > + cap-sdio-irq;
> > + disable-wp;
> > + keep-power-in-suspend;
> > + max-frequency = <150000000>;
> > + mmc-pwrseq = <&sdio_pwrseq>;
> > + no-sd;
> > + no-mmc;
> > + non-removable;
> > + pinctrl-names = "default";
> > + pinctrl-0 = <&sdiom0_pins>;
> > + sd-uhs-sdr104;
> > + vmmc-supply = <&vcc3v3_ekey>;
> > + status = "okay";
> > +};
> > +
> > +&sfc {
> > + pinctrl-names = "default";
> > + pinctrl-0 = <&fspim2_pins>;
> > + status = "okay";
>
> Shouldn't those properties be sorted alphabetically? Or at least consistently?
> Note that the same issue is present on other places too, but I believe the
> above quoted part shows the issue enough.
The main sorting is
- compatible
- reg
[... alphabetically ...]
- status
But now that I look at it, you're right there are some non-alphabetical
shenanigans going on there in the sdmmc and sdhci nodes ;-)
Heiko
