Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: rockchip: add rock5 itx board

["Heiko Stübner" <heiko@sntech.de>]

Am Donnerstag, 4. Juli 2024, 13:43:47 CEST schrieb Alex Bee:
> Am 04.07.24 um 12:05 schrieb Heiko Stübner:
> > Hi Diederik,
> > 
> > Am Donnerstag, 4. Juli 2024, 11:38:51 CEST schrieb Diederik de Haas:
> >> Thanks for submitting this. A quick scan indicates it should work with a
> >> (recent) Debian kernel OOTB :-)
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, 3 July 2024 23:05:24 CEST Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> >>> +&sdhci {
> >>> +       bus-width = <8>;
> >>> +       no-sdio;
> >>> +       no-sd;
> >>> +       non-removable;
> >>> +       max-frequency = <200000000>;
> >>> +       mmc-hs400-1_8v;
> >>> +       mmc-hs400-enhanced-strobe;
> >>> +       mmc-hs200-1_8v;
> >>> +       status = "okay";
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >>> +&sdmmc {
> >>> +       max-frequency = <200000000>;
> >>> +       no-sdio;
> >>> +       no-mmc;
> >>> +       bus-width = <4>;
> >>> +       cap-mmc-highspeed;
> >>> +       cap-sd-highspeed;
> >>> +       disable-wp;
> >>> +       sd-uhs-sdr104;
> >>> +       vmmc-supply = <&vcc_3v3_s3>;
> >>> +       vqmmc-supply = <&vccio_sd_s0>;
> >>> +       pinctrl-names = "default";
> >>> +       pinctrl-0 = <&sdmmc_bus4 &sdmmc_clk &sdmmc_cmd &sdmmc_det>;
> >>> +       status = "okay";
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >>> +/* M.2 E-KEY */
> >>> +&sdio {
> >>> +       broken-cd;
> >>> +       bus-width = <4>;
> >>> +       cap-sdio-irq;
> >>> +       disable-wp;
> >>> +       keep-power-in-suspend;
> >>> +       max-frequency = <150000000>;
> >>> +       mmc-pwrseq = <&sdio_pwrseq>;
> >>> +       no-sd;
> >>> +       no-mmc;
> >>> +       non-removable;
> >>> +       pinctrl-names = "default";
> >>> +       pinctrl-0 = <&sdiom0_pins>;
> >>> +       sd-uhs-sdr104;
> >>> +       vmmc-supply = <&vcc3v3_ekey>;
> >>> +       status = "okay";
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >>> +&sfc {
> >>> +       pinctrl-names = "default";
> >>> +       pinctrl-0 = <&fspim2_pins>;
> >>> +       status = "okay";
> >>
> >> Shouldn't those properties be sorted alphabetically? Or at least consistently?
> >> Note that the same issue is present on other places too, but I believe the
> >> above quoted part shows the issue enough.
> > 
> > The main sorting is
> > - compatible
> > - reg
> > [... alphabetically ...]
> > - status
> > 
> Yeah ... that's always the question when adding new board files. Do it like
> "it's always been done" or re-sort the properties alphanumeric _everywhere_
> which looks quite strange at times. If I'm getting the newly added dt
> coding style correctly common (subsystem?) properties should also be placed
> before vendor (driver?) specific ones. Yet I didn't see a board file which
> places 'regulator-max-microvolt' before 'regulator-min-microvolt'. So I
> guess it's fine if it's done consistently within the same file?

I always see it as a best-effort thing. If all regulator-* stuff is grouped
together it will be mostly fine. I'm not going to haggle over the sorting
of the 10th character of property names ;-) .

(and of course reading min before max, is sort of more intuitive)

And of course leaf-things (board dts) are less "important" than the core
nodes in soc devicetrees.