Re: Device tree node order sort tool

[Frank Li <Frank.li@nxp.com>]

On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 09:17:37AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 10:03:32AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 11:43:53AM -0400, Frank Li wrote:
> > > All:
> > > 	I write a simple tools to sort device tree to make sure nodes and
> > > properties sort as correct order.
> > > 	https://github.com/lznuaa/dt-format
> > >
> > > 	There are many dt files, which have node order trivial issue, when
> > > try to upstream. To reduce reviewer's time, dt-format can help correct the
> > > order.
> > >
> >
> > Hey Frank,
> >
> > Cool idea!
>
> I concur, it is a useful idea.
>
> > > 	I just want to make sure my understand about node order is correct.
> > >
> > > 	Rule 1: node@hexvalue,  	order by hexvalue
> > > 	Rule 2: label: node,  		order by node name
> > > 	Rule 3: node, 			order by node name
> > > 	Rule 3: &label			order by label
> >
> > Some subsystems have different ordering, like expressed in DTS coding
> > style:
> > 1. DTS: keep order of DTSI file
> > 2. DTSI: group similar nodes together (e.g. serial engines).
>
> I think it's fine to pick whatever is used by іmx/nxp and start with
> that style, get something working and then decide based on whether or
> not there are many users (or interest) if it is worth allowing the
> "style" to be configured.
>
> >
> > > 	Rule 4: children node already after property
> > > 	Rule 5: "status" always is last one.
> > > 	Rule 6: property order as below list[unfinished], otherwise, order
> > > 	        by name.
> > >
> > > compatible
> > > reg
> > > reg-names
> > > ranges
> >
> > Up to here everything above seems about right, except above caveats.
> >
> > > #interrupt-cells
> > > interrupt-controller
> > > interrupts
> > > interrupt-names
> > > #gpio-cells
> > > gpio-controller
> > > gpio-ranges
> > > #address-cells
> > > #size-cells
> > > clocks
> > > clock-names
> > > assigned-clocks
> > > assigned-clock-parents
> > > assigned-clock-rates
> > > dmas
> > > dma-names
> >
> > I don't think we have defined order for these.

It should be good for less special case. I got some comments during dts
review such as

	#gpio-cells just before gpio-controller, the same as
#interrupt-cells before interrupt-controller.
	*-names after *.

	Does above rule is widely adaptive?

Frank

>
> We may not, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the order that
> Frank has chosen here being a ‶default".
> That said, I'd not enjoy getting a bunch of patches for the platforms
> that I maintain redoing things in this order, so it is worth asking the
> platform maintainer for their take on whether it should be used for
> anything other than new code, before sending a rake of patches.

At beginning, I just want to compare upstream dts and downstream dts
easily. I supposed just help new code.

>
> Cheers,
> Conor.