On 20/11/2023 15:01, Michal Simek wrote:
>
>
> On 11/20/23 09:40, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> Document preferred coding style for Devicetree sources (DTS and DTSI),
>> to bring consistency among all (sub)architectures and ease in reviews.
>>
>> Cc: Andrew Davis <afd@xxxxxx>
>> Cc: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx>
>> Cc: Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Merging idea: Rob/DT bindings
>>
>> Changes in v2
>> =============
>> 1. Hopefully incorporate entire feedback from comments:
>> a. Fix \ { => / { (Rob)
>> b. Name: dts-coding-style (Rob)
>> c. Exceptions for ordering nodes by name for Renesas and pinctrl (Geert,
>> Konrad)
>> d. Ordering properties by common/vendor (Rob)
>> e. Array entries in <> (Rob)
>>
>> 2. New chapter: Organizing DTSI and DTS
>>
>> 3. Several grammar fixes (missing articles)
>>
>> Cc: linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: linux-mediatek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: linux-samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: linux-amlogic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: linux-arm-msm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> ---
>> .../devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.rst | 163 ++++++++++++++++++
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/index.rst | 1 +
>> 2 files changed, 164 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.rst
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.rst b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.rst
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..cc7e3b4d1b92
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.rst
>> @@ -0,0 +1,163 @@
>> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +.. _dtscodingstyle:
>> +
>> +=====================================
>> +Devicetree Sources (DTS) Coding Style
>> +=====================================
>> +
>> +When writing Devicetree Sources (DTS) please observe below guidelines. They
>> +should be considered complementary to any rules expressed already in Devicetree
>> +Specification and dtc compiler (including W=1 and W=2 builds).
>> +
>> +Individual architectures and sub-architectures can add additional rules, making
>> +the style stricter.
>> +
>> +Naming and Valid Characters
>> +---------------------------
>> +
>> +1. Node and property names are allowed to use only:
>> +
>> + * lowercase characters: [a-z]
>> + * digits: [0-9]
>> + * dash: -
>
> device-tree specification v0.4. Chapter 2.2.1/Table 2.1 is describing much more
> valid characters for node names.
> It means above description is not accurate or DT spec should be updated.
Spec allows way to much. dtc doesn't. One thing is the spec, second
thing is coding style.
>
>
>> +
>> +2. Labels are allowed to use only:
>> +
>> + * lowercase characters: [a-z]
>> + * digits: [0-9]
>> + * underscore: _
>
> based on dt spec uppercase is also valid char in label.
Which we do not want in the DTS.
>
>
>> +
>> +3. Unit addresses should use lowercase hex, without leading zeros (padding).
>> +
>> +4. Hex values in properties, e.g. "reg", should use lowercase hex. The address
>> + part can be padded with leading zeros.
>> +
>> +Example::
>> +
>> + gpi_dma2: dma-controller@800000 {
>> + compatible = "qcom,sm8550-gpi-dma", "qcom,sm6350-gpi-dma";
>> + reg = <0x0 0x00800000 0x0 0x60000>;
>
> Is 0x0 recommended or 0 is enough?
I don't want to impose any rule on that, because someone would like to
argue that hex should be also in SPI chip-select reg.
>
>> + }
>> +
>> +Order of Nodes
>> +--------------
>> +
>> +1. Nodes within any bus, thus using unit addresses for children, shall be
>> + ordered incrementally by unit address.
>> + Alternatively for some sub-architectures, nodes of the same type can be
>> + grouped together (e.g. all I2C controllers one after another even if this
>> + breaks unit address ordering).
>> +
>> +2. Nodes without unit addresses should be ordered alpha-numerically by the node
>> + name. For a few types of nodes, they can be ordered by the main property
>> + (e.g. pin configuration states ordered by value of "pins" property).
>> +
>> +3. When extending nodes in the board DTS via &label, the entries should be
>> + ordered alpha-numerically.
>> +
>> +Example::
>> +
>> + // SoC DTSI
>
> Same comment about /* */ as was mentioned in another thread.
>
>> +
>> + / {
>> + cpus {
>> + // ...
>> + };
>> +
>> + psci {
>> + // ...
>> + };
>> +
>> + soc@ {
>> + dma: dma-controller@10000 {
>> + // ...
>> + };
>> +
>> + clk: clock-controller@80000 {
>> + // ...
>> + };
>> + };
>> + };
>> +
>> + // Board DTS
>> +
>> + &clk {
>> + // ...
>> + };
>> +
>> + &dma {
>> + // ...
>> + };
>> +
>> +
>> +Order of Properties in Device Node
>> +----------------------------------
>> +
>> +Following order of properties in device nodes is preferred:
>> +
>> +1. compatible
>> +2. reg
>> +3. ranges
>> +4. Standard/common properties (defined by common bindings, e.g. without
>> + vendor-prefixes)
>> +5. Vendor-specific properties
>> +6. status (if applicable)
>> +7. Child nodes, where each node is preceded with a blank line
>
> Isn't the order already defined in DT spec in 2.3 in chapters?
Where is it defined as this is preferred order?
> compatible
> model
> status
> #address/size cells
> reg
> virtual-reg
> ranges
> dma-ranges
> dma-coherent
> dma-non-coherent
>
> Again I am fine with whatever order but I think we should reflect it in the spec
Spec is not a coding style.
> too. Especially status property is for my taste too low simply because you start
> to read and then you will find that IP is disabled.
Which is exactly what you want. status is irrelevant for hardware
description, so should be the last item.
>
> And are you describing all properties starting with # as standard properties?
Yes.
>
>
>> +
>> +The "status" property is by default "okay", thus it can be omitted.
>> +
>> +Example::
>> +
>> + // SoC DTSI
>
>
> /* */
>
>> +
>> + usb_1_hsphy: phy@88e3000 {
>> + compatible = "qcom,sm8550-snps-eusb2-phy";
>> + reg = <0x0 0x088e3000 0x0 0x154>;
>> + #phy-cells = <0>;
>> + resets = <&gcc GCC_QUSB2PHY_PRIM_BCR>;
>> + status = "disabled";
>> + };
>> +
>> + // Board DTS
>> +
>> + &usb_1_hsphy {
>> + clocks = <&tcsr TCSR_USB2_CLKREF_EN>;
>> + clock-names = "ref";
>> + status = "okay";
>> + };
>> +
>> +
>> +Indentation
>> +-----------
>> +
>> +1. Use indentation according to :ref:`codingstyle`.
>> +2. For arrays spanning across lines, it is preferred to align the continued
>> + entries with opening < from the first line.
>> +3. Each entry in arrays with multiple cells (e.g. "reg" with two IO addresses)
>> + should be enclosed in <>.
>> +
>> +Example::
>> +
>> + thermal-sensor@c271000 {
>> + compatible = "qcom,sm8550-tsens", "qcom,tsens-v2";
>> + reg = <0x0 0x0c271000 0x0 0x1000>,
>> + <0x0 0x0c222000 0x0 0x1000>;
>> + };
>> +
>> +Organizing DTSI and DTS
>> +-----------------------
>> +
>> +The DTSI and DTS files should be organized in a way representing the common
>> +(and re-usable) parts of the hardware. Typically this means organizing DTSI
>> +and DTS files into several files:
>> +
>> +1. DTSI with contents of the entire SoC (without nodes for hardware not present
>> + on the SoC).
>> +2. If applicable: DTSI with common or re-usable parts of the hardware (e.g.
>> + entire System-on-Module).
>
> DTS/DTSI - SOMs can actually run as they are that's why it is fair to say that
> there doesn't need to be DTS representing the board.
I have never seen a SoM which can run without elaborate hardware-hacking
(e.g. connecting multiple wires to the SoM pins). The definition of the
SoM is that it is a module. Module can be re-used, just like SoC.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
