On 2024/10/27 6:17 pm, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 27/10/2024 22:13, Cody Eksal wrote:
On 2024/10/27 5:47 pm, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 02:05:29PM -0300, Cody Eksal wrote:
diff --git
a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/allwinner,sun50i-h6-operating-points.yaml
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/allwinner,sun50i-h6-operating-points.yaml
index ec5e424bb3c8..603c6c88d080 100644
---
a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/allwinner,sun50i-h6-operating-points.yaml
+++
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/allwinner,sun50i-h6-operating-points.yaml
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ properties:
compatible:
enum:
- allwinner,sun50i-h6-operating-points
+ - allwinner,sun50i-a100-operating-points
- allwinner,sun50i-h616-operating-points
I have no clue why a100 is between h6 and h616. :/
From my understanding, the A100 was released before the H616, but
after
the H6. There are not many sources to rely on for this, but the H6
appears to have launched in 2017, the A100 in 2019, and the H616 in
2020.
I assumed ordering was intended to be in chronological order; perhaps
it
was intended to be in lexicographical order instead? If so, I can move
this entry above the H6.
Most, really most of the lists in the bindings are ordered
alphanumerically, because that's the only order all people will get and
all people can really verify. There are exceptions. If that's the one
here, then sure, keep chronological order.
After reviewing other files, it seems like alphanumeric ordering is
normally used in the bindings for these peripherals. I'll update in V2.
Thank you!
- Cody
Best regards,
Krzysztof
