Am Donnerstag, 5. September 2024, 14:21:12 CEST schrieb Diederik de Haas: > On Thu Sep 5, 2024 at 1:39 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 05/09/2024 13:32, Dragan Simic wrote: > > > Sprinkle a few commonly used aliases onto the PineTab2 dtsi file, to improve > > > its readability a bit, to make it easier to refer to the actual nodes later, > > > if needed, and to add a bit more detail to some of the labels. > > > > > > Suggested-by: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Unused aliases do not improve readability, so for me this change is > > making code worse without valid reason. > > This came forth by a question from me to Dragan about a patch for > another board which doesn't have a charger defined at all (yet). > I actually have that patch (but not the HW) for a while (~1.5 year) > now and I had used `rk817_charger: charger` for that, probably because > I saw that being used everywhere else. > > Then I compared it to the PineTab2 and noticed it had only `charger`, so > I asked "What should I use? With or without the alias?" > In this case the inconsistency is causing confusion (with me). > > So: What should be used for that other/new board(s)? As Krzysztof said, having a phandle that is never going to be used is somewhat pointless. Having a phandle defined for a node does not hurt anything, so having some in a board dts is not catastrophically bad, but there is no reason to add or remove unused ones for no reason - especially as it affects git blame . So in short, if you see an unused phandle in a dts _patch_, just point it out in review. Heiko
