Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: media: qcom,x1e80100-camss: Sort interconnects alphabetically

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 25/06/2025 08:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 24/06/2025 15:29, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>> On 6/24/25 15:04, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 24/06/2025 13:38, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/25 13:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 24/06/2025 11:42, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>>> Sort the entries of interconnect and interconnect-names lists in the
>>>>>> alphabetical order of values in the latter property.
>>>>>
>>>>> We do not sort these entries alphabetically and you did not explain why
>>>>> you are doing this.
>>>>
>>>> I did it, because I assume that the preference is to sort all named
>>>> values alphanumerically.
>>>
>>> Where is such preference documented?
>>
>> There is no such preference documented, as I stated it was my assumption
>> and it was based on your firm insistance to apply a particular sorting
>> order for regs, clocks and interrupts properties. Apparently you are
> 
> Hm? And the rule is by name? I don't think I ever expressed that or
> insisted on some sorting by name. During previous talks on camss
> numerous times you ignored the ONLY rule of sorting I was insisting:
> keep the same as all other devices. That was the one and only rule.
> 
>> fine with out of the same sort order for 'interconnects' values, the
>> criteria of picked properties remains unclear for me.
> 
> I don't understand why it is unclear. That time with Bryan you both
> received VERY CLEAR feedback from me: there is no such rule of sorting
> any values. Yet you were pushing the discussion and patchset like there
> was something.
> 
Look, the first reply:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/65e5796a-8b8d-44f0-aef4-e420083b9d52@kernel.org/

"You are supposed to keep the same order, as much as
possible."

What rule is unclear here?

Even more precise reply from me:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/8f11c99b-f3ca-4501-aec4-0795643fc3a9@kernel.org/

"I don't imply sorting by name is any better. "

And:

"The only rule is that all
devices from same family type must have the same order."


And now you claim there was from me "firm insistance to apply a
particular sorting" in context of name?

So again, my entire feedback repeated multiple times during that
discussion is totally ignored and twisted to some fake new rule of name
sorting.

Best regards,
Krzysztof