From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: afaerber@suse.de (=?windows-1252?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?=) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 16:00:17 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v4] ARM: sun7i: add support for A20-OLinuXino-Lime2 In-Reply-To: <20141010135643.GN19438@lukather> References: <20140928164337.GB15315@lukather> <54295711.9010901@gmail.com> <20140929132543.GC4081@lukather> <54296D8B.3080304@gmail.com> <20141002124807.GC4039@lukather> <5431C8EF.3070809@gmail.com> <20141006092049.GF4090@lukather> <54366326.3060303@gmail.com> <20141009195630.GJ19438@lukather> <5437DC04.6070000@gmail.com> <20141010135643.GN19438@lukather> Message-ID: <543937F1.3050105@suse.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Am 10.10.2014 um 15:56 schrieb Maxime Ripard: > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 02:15:48PM +0100, Iain Paton wrote: >> On 09/10/14 20:56, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>> Sorry for noticing this so late, but we sort the DT nodes by their >>> base address. Could you respin this for another version? >> >> Sure, no problem, on it's way shortly. >> >> Is there any general rule for this sort of thing, or is this something >> specific to sunxi? >> >> Asking mainly as I've been asked to do them alphabetically previously >> by a different maintainer and that's esentially why I did it the same >> way here. >> >> Everyone having different undocumented conventions seems likely to >> become counter productive eventually. > > That's unusual, it should be a global convention at least for ARM. >>From what I understood it's by unit address for foo at 12345678 and alphabetically for &foo. So there is both actually, plus existing inconsistencies. :) Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N?rnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend?rffer; HRB 16746 AG N?rnberg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: