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

[Alex Bee <knaerzche@gmail.com>]

Am 04.07.24 um 14:05 schrieb Heiko Stübner:
> 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.
>
Great, thanks for sharing. Will (try) to follow in future.

Alex

>