On 2025-01-18 10:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 18/01/2025 10:25, Dragan Simic wrote:
On 2025-01-18 09:46, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 17/01/2025 05:10, Dragan Simic wrote:
On 2025-01-16 17:53, Diederik de Haas wrote:
On Thu Jan 16, 2025 at 2:01 PM CET, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 15/01/2025 02:26, Peter Geis wrote:
Add the node for the rk3328 usb3 phy. This node provides a
combined
usb2
and usb3 phy which are permenantly tied to the dwc3 usb3
controller.
Signed-off-by: Peter Geis <pgwipeout@xxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi | 39
++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi
b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi
index 7d992c3c01ce..181a900d41f9 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi
@@ -903,6 +903,43 @@ u2phy_host: host-port {
};
};
+ usb3phy: usb3-phy@ff460000 {
+ compatible = "rockchip,rk3328-usb3phy";
+ reg = <0x0 0xff460000 0x0 0x10000>;
+ clocks = <&cru SCLK_REF_USB3OTG>, <&cru PCLK_USB3PHY_OTG>,
<&cru
PCLK_USB3PHY_PIPE>;
Please wrap code according to coding style (checkpatch is not a
coding
style description, but only a tool), so at 80.
I'm confused: is it 80 or 100?
I always thought it was 80, but then I saw several patches/commits
by
Dragan Simic which deliberately changed code to make use of 100.
Being fed up with my own confusion, I submitted a PR to
https://github.com/gregkh/kernel-coding-style/ which got accepted:
https://github.com/gregkh/kernel-coding-style/commit/5c21f99dc79883bd0efeba368193180275c9c77a
So now both the vim plugins code and README say 100.
But as noted in my commit message:
Note that the current upstream 'Linux kernel coding style' does
NOT
mention the 100 char limit, but only mentions the preferred max
length
of 80.
Or is it 100 for code, but 80 for DeviceTree files and bindings?
I don't know about the DT files and bindings, but the 100-column
limit
for the kernel code has been in effect for years. In this day and
age,
That's just false. It was never in effect for years. Read kernel
coding
style document.
Perhaps it's about the semantics.
Please see the commit bdc48fa11e46 (checkpatch/coding-style: deprecate
80-column warning, 2020-05-29), which clearly shows that the 80-column
rule is still _preferred_, but no longer _mandatory_.
I brought that commit, but nice that you also found it.
Still: read the coding style, not checkpatch tool.
80 columns is really not much (for the record, I've been around when
using 80x25 _physical_ CRT screens was the norm).
You mistake agreement on dropping strong restriction in 2020 in
checkpatch, which is "not for years" and even read that commit: "Yes,
staying withing 80 columns is certainly still _preferred_."
Checkpatch is not coding style. Since when it would be? It's just a
tool.
And there were more talks and the 80-preference got relaxed yet still
"not for years" (last talk was 2022?) and sill kernel coding style is
here specific.
It's perhaps again about the semantics, this time about the meaning
of "for years". I don't think there's some strict definition of that
term, so perhaps different people see it differently.
To get back to the above-mentioned commit bdc48fa11e46, the 80-column
limit has obviously been lifted, putting the new 100-column limit as
"Lifted" on *CHECKPATCH*, not on coding style. Do you see the
difference? One is a helper tool which people were using blindly and
wrapping lines without thinking, claiming that checkpatch told them to
do so. Other is the actual coding style.
You claim that coding style was changed. This never happened.
It was obviously changed in the commit bdc48fa11e46, by making the
80-column width preferred, instead of if being mandatory. The way
I read the changes to the coding style introduced in that commit,
it's now possible to go over 80 columns, up to 100 columns, _if_
that actually improves the readability of the source code.
Just like enforcing the 80-column blindly can make the code much
less readable, it's also that going liberally to 100 columns can
make the code even less readable. To me, those rules aren't to be
followed blindly, but the resulting readability of the code should
be the deciding factor for pretty much each line of the code.
And my first - really the first - comment here was also precise
mentioning that difference:
"Please wrap code according to coding style (*checkpatch is not* a
coding style description, but only a tool), so at 80."
Again, I think that the readability should be the deciding factor.
