On 19.07.2022 12:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 19/07/2022 11:59, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 at 12:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski >> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On 18/07/2022 17:38, Christian Marangi wrote: >>>> Reorganize node order and sort them by address. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> This was picked from for-next qcom branch [1]. Reorganize dtsi as requested. >>>> >>>> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/qcom/linux.git/?h=for-next >>> >>> If this is picked by qcom branch, no need to resend it. >>> >>> I don't see value in such reshuffle. Reviewing is not possible and you >>> did not mention tests (results should be equal). >> >> The value is usual for all the cleanups: make it follow the >> established practice. > > Are you sure this is established practice? Yes. New DTSI files (see SC8280XP, > sm8450 although sc7280 looked ordered) do not always follow it, so why > imposing it for existing code? Perhaps it slipped through review.. Partially my bad. Such reshuffle can cause conflicts thus > stops parallel development. Review is close to impossible... Almost any addition or removal also causes conflicts, because git is not as smart as we would like it to be. If the commit is structured properly (i.e. it *only* changes the order and nothing else), decompiling the dtbs before and after applying it and using a tool like meld that can find similar chunks of text at different offsets review is definitely possible, though not very pleasant (you can't just diff them, as order is preserved & phandles change due to that) as you have to look at it manually and can't tell much by just taking a look at the email. Konrad > > Best regards, > Krzysztof
