RE: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: exynos: Add DT node for all UART ports

["Faraz Ata" <faraz.ata@samsung.com>]

Hello Krzysztof

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2025 3:41 PM
> To: Faraz Ata <faraz.ata@samsung.com>; alim.akhtar@samsung.com;
> robh@kernel.org; krzk+dt@kernel.org; conor+dt@kernel.org
> Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-
> samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> rosa.pila@samsung.com; dev.tailor@samsung.com;
> suyash.bitti@samsung.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: exynos: Add DT node for all UART ports
> 
> On 11/04/2025 09:07, Faraz Ata wrote:
> > Hello Krzysztof
> >
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: exynos: Add DT node for all UART
> >> ports
> >>
> >> On 18/03/2025 08:56, Faraz Ata wrote:
> >>> +
> >>> +		usi_17: usi@10d800c0 {
> >>
> >> Messed order. Keep nodes sorted by unit address (see DTS coding style).
> >>
> >>
> > Thanks for your review
> > Based on the DTS coding style, it is acceptable to group nodes of the
> > same type together, even if it breaks the unit address ordering.
> 
> That's accepted alternative because some subsystems do that way. I don't
> think we ever applied such rule to Samsung? Do you have any prior
> reference about this? I accepted mess in the past, but that does not mean
> that mess is the rule.
> 
> > https://docs.kernel.org/6.12/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.html
> > Please let me know your opinion on this.
> > Do you mean I should move all the USI_ node after pwm node?
> 
> Please it according to sorting by unit address.
> 
USI is spread across two blocks BLK_PERIC0 and BLK_PERIC1,
USI00 to USI08 fall under BLK_PERIC0
USI09 to USI17 fall under BLK_PERIC1.
Will send another version with USI nodes sorted by unit address with respect to BLK_PERIC0 and BLK_PERIC1.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof