Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: media: qcom,x1e80100-camss: Sort interconnects alphabetically

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 25/06/2025 16:07, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> On 6/25/25 10:01, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 25/06/2025 08:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 24/06/2025 15:29, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/25 15:04, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 24/06/2025 13:38, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/25 13:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/06/2025 11:42, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sort the entries of interconnect and interconnect-names lists in the
>>>>>>>> alphabetical order of values in the latter property.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We do not sort these entries alphabetically and you did not explain why
>>>>>>> you are doing this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did it, because I assume that the preference is to sort all named
>>>>>> values alphanumerically.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where is such preference documented?
>>>>
>>>> There is no such preference documented, as I stated it was my assumption
>>>> and it was based on your firm insistance to apply a particular sorting
>>>> order for regs, clocks and interrupts properties. Apparently you are
>>>
>>> Hm? And the rule is by name? I don't think I ever expressed that or
>>> insisted on some sorting by name. During previous talks on camss
>>> numerous times you ignored the ONLY rule of sorting I was insisting:
>>> keep the same as all other devices. That was the one and only rule.
>>>
>>>> fine with out of the same sort order for 'interconnects' values, the
>>>> criteria of picked properties remains unclear for me.
>>>
>>> I don't understand why it is unclear. That time with Bryan you both
>>> received VERY CLEAR feedback from me: there is no such rule of sorting
>>> any values. Yet you were pushing the discussion and patchset like there
>>> was something.
>>>
>> Look, the first reply:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/65e5796a-8b8d-44f0-aef4-e420083b9d52@kernel.org/
>>
>> "You are supposed to keep the same order, as much as
>> possible."
>>
>> What rule is unclear here?
> 
> At the moment of the given comment "the same order" was not "sorting by
> values", it was "sorting to address".
> 
> Check the next message right in the same thread:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/c1539cce-92eb-43fc-9267-f6e002611bbb@linaro.org/
> 
> "We always sort by address". And that was the correct statement at

Hm? This was not a true statement and anyway this was not from me. Why
are you both with Bryan creating some fake rules and then later use them
in arguments in discussions?

We don't talk here what sort of rule other person invented.

> the time of the discussion.
> 
> Did it help to "keep the same order" in any sense? No, the message was
> plainly ignored, and after the long discussion with you the sorting order

And that's some sort of my job to read every possible comment
everywhere? I have way too many emails to respond to, so no, I will
ignore most of them.

> has been brutally enforced to become the new "sorting by values" order,

What? Where? This never happened!

Point me to any guidance by DT maintainers. Not to some other people
telling you random stuff.

> and to my sincere today's surprise there is no such rule. Apparently now
> I have to believe it was Bryan's and my voluntary and deliberate decision
> to change the sorting order, all right.

Point to arguments where any DT maintainer asked you to sort by value.


Best regards,
Krzysztof