Re: [PATCH v2] docs: dt-bindings: add DTS Coding Style document

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 21/11/2023 09:08, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>>> I guess there are (many) other examples...
>>>>
>>>> OK, I never had such in my hands. Anyway, the SoM which can run
>>>> standalone  has a meaning of a board, so how exactly you want to
>>>> rephrase the paragraph?
>>>
>>> What about?
>>>
>>> 2. If applicable: DTSI with common or re-usable parts of the hardware (e.g.
>>> entire System-on-Module). DTS if runs standalone.
>>
>> OK, but then it's duplicating the option 3. It also suggests that SoM
>> should be a DTS, which is not what we want for such case. Such SoMs must
>> have DTSI+DTS.
> 
> So you want us to have a one-line <SoM>.dts, which just includes <SoM>.dtsi?
> IMHO that adds more files for no much gain.

Yes, if this is a real SoM, then yes. There is much gain - it clearly
represents the hardware like we in general expect. It allows re-usage by
in- and out-tree users, while documenting this possibility.

We structure DTS according to main components of the hardware, which
serves as self-documenting, re-usable and easy to grasp solution.

> Users of a SoM can easily include <SoM>.dts.

Which is confusing during review and not a welcomed pattern.

> 'git grep "#include .*dts\>"' tells you we have plenty of users of that scheme.

Yeah, you can put C functions inside header (included only once). You
can include C file in other C file. But just because you can do it, it
does not mean you should do it. It's not the way we want to make code
organized.


Best regards,
Krzysztof