On 31/10/2024 16:42, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > On 11/10/2024 15:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> How do you imagine writing drivers and request items by order (not by >> name) if the order is different in each flavor? > > I don't think I'd be much in favour of relying on declaration order in > the dts, favouring names to find resources instead, tbh. > > The 8250 has regs that sort by address and name in the same order. For > 8280xp we preferred sort by address and you're right the interrupt > sorting isn't consistent. > > However the latest applied dts for CAMSS is sort by address/irq not sort > by reg-name irq-name. > > Unless its a NAK from yourself and Rob, that would certainly be my > preference for any _new_ additions subsequent. It's not a NAK as long you keep the same order in new bindings, which I think it is not possible. I repeat myself: there is no rule/style that list should be ordered by values, but there is a rule that all devices from the same family should have the same order of items in the list. I don't think it is achievable with your approach - sorting by value. Best regards, Krzysztof
