On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 05:30:24PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 22.06.2022 17:26, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 05:10:50PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > >> On 22.06.2022 16:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>> On 22/06/2022 16:36, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > >>>> On 22.06.2022 15:43, Johan Hovold wrote: > >>>>> No, quite the opposite, status go at the end. > >>>> Then all other device DTs should be updated, as in dts/qcom/ > >>>> everybody keeps it first in non-SoC/PMIC files. > >>> > >>> The word "should" is a bit too much here, but I agree, we can update all > >>> of them to match one, chosen approach. > >>> > >>> However the location for "status" property is more important for the > >>> definition of nodes in DTSI, because it's the least important piece > >>> there and also kind of expected - here go properties + I disable it. For > >>> me this is more important. > > > > Right, and this is the argument for keeping status last, something which > > is well defined. > > > > If you look at some of the qcom dtsi it's hard to determine whether a > > node is disabled or not because the status property does not actually go > > "first" but is rather typically mixed up somewhere in the middle (or > > upper part) of nodes. > > > >>> For node redefinition in DTS, I see benefits in two approaches: > >>> 1. Let me first enable the node and then configure it. > >>> 2. Let me configure the node and enable it. > > > > So for consistency, just put status last everywhere (dtsi and dts) and > > be done with it. > That works. Actually, it looks like a lot of the qcom dtsi already do this too (i.e. put status last). The dts may be more inconsistent on this matter judging from a quick look. > >> I looked around non-qcom device trees and it looks like the common > >> consensus is 2. Although I personally visually prefer 1. and it's > >> been used in all qcom arm64 DTs to date, I don't think there are any > >> blockers for us to switch to 1. going forward to keep it consistent. > > > > You mean inconsistent with the majority of dts? ;) > Not like anything involving Qualcomm was ever consistent or compliant > with the majority :D Heh. :) Johan
