Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dt-bindings: tegra: Document compatible for IGX

[Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2387 bytes --]

On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 08:22:21AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 02/05/2023 17:02, Shubhi Garg wrote:
> > Document the compatible strings used for Nvidia IGX Orin Development
> > kit which uses P3701 SKU8 and P3740 carrier board.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Shubhi Garg <shgarg@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra.yaml | 5 +++++
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra.yaml
> > index 0df41f5b7e2a..34523b8b5d1f 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra.yaml
> > @@ -176,5 +176,10 @@ properties:
> >            - const: nvidia,p3768-0000+p3767-0000
> >            - const: nvidia,p3767-0000
> >            - const: nvidia,tegra234
> > +      - description: NVIDIA IGX Orin Development Kit
> > +        items:
> > +          - const: nvidia,p3740-0002+p3701-0008
> > +          - const: nvidia,p3701-0008
> > +          - const: nvidia,tegra234
> >  
> 
> Don't stuff things to the end, but put in some logical order. For
> example 'I' could be before 'N'.

Sorting these alphabetically doesn't work well because it's not very
deterministic. So far we've always grouped these by SoC family and
within each group they are sorted chronologically. Chronologically
here being determined by the upstream activity. We could perhaps make
that a bit more formal by sorting by part number. Those are usually
assigned at design time (i.e. p3740 was designed prior to p3768), so
in that case the IGX would be sorted after the AGX Orin.

The NVIDIA in the description is something we haven't been very strict
about. It'd probably be a good idea to add that wherever relevant since
other vendors make products with these modules.

We could also add comments to the list to visually separate the SoC
family groups. That's something for another patch, though.

Would you agree with chronological (by part number) sorting? In practice
this would tend towards new things getting added to the end, but I think
it's the least confusing for people looking at these lists. For instance
if I buy a very recent device, I would expect it to show up somewhere
close to the end of a list rather than potentially very high up.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]