Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: talos-evk: Add support for QCS615 talos evk board

[tessolveupstream@gmail.com]

On 06-12-2025 08:13, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2025 at 10:58:56AM +0530, Anusha Ajithkumar wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03-12-2025 02:36, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2025 at 12:16, <tessolveupstream@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 14-11-2025 01:38, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 04:27:35PM +0530, Sudarshan Shetty wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +&uart0 {
>>>>>> +    status = "okay";
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +&usb_1_hsphy {
>>>>>> +    vdd-supply = <&vreg_l5a>;
>>>>>> +    vdda-pll-supply = <&vreg_l12a>;
>>>>>> +    vdda-phy-dpdm-supply = <&vreg_l13a>;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    status = "okay";
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +&usb_qmpphy {
>>>>>> +    vdda-phy-supply = <&vreg_l5a>;
>>>>>> +    vdda-pll-supply = <&vreg_l12a>;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    status = "okay";
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +&usb_1 {
>>>>>> +    status = "okay";
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +&usb_1_dwc3 {
>>>>>> +    dr_mode = "host";
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +&usb_hsphy_2 {
>>>>>
>>>>> So, the labels are usb_1_hsphy, but usb_hsphy_2? That's not logical,
>>>>> please fix one of them. Then please fix the order of nodes here.
>>>>
>>>> The node names come directly from the included talos.dtsi, where they
>>>> are defined as usb_1_hsphy & usb_hsphy_2.
>>>> To avoid breaking inherited definitions, we kept the same labels
>>>> in our board DTS.
>>>
>>> Please fix them in the base DT.
>>>
>>
>> The inconsistent naming originates from talos.dtsi, which is 
>> outside the scope of this patch series. Modifying these labels 
>> in our board DTS would break the inherited node references 
>> from talos.dtsi. >> However, I will reorder the nodes so they appear in a logical and
> 
> Please fix the base DT. There is no such thing as "out of scope".
> 

Okay, will take care in the next patch.
>>>> consistent sequence.
>>>
>>> This is a prerequisite, no questions.
>>>
>>
>