From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B1BCC02185 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2025 09:44:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From :Date:MIME-Version:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=MTniiSJBM+HQpPXtUUzeKwg2FpQaeYWJ7spukleFdXs=; b=gG926v5hLlY33TvT97lDUEmTFx u9rltiVuyVZT0dm/w16XVMQV2RTOXMYC8LdlNL8xrD0tiLwEy4Oq0apu/c/aeNfkum+9wuP1LRPgN 7FJmQMCkKRoXXMRkeHD4weZBf+TV2XdA+B+wc6Sx71Whdm1CuZcZgi+Ei3AslZco6tlNrwQNhwz87 UHmjsUV9O2oCCtluInKJmRdFvkpaPmtBOk6kvT9vTV99SpcOHZmbqLYDCfXpt+PhXVeLVTTgnufFh O8mHlBQrRvstLJ5+U25aXRke/2LCj1lPomNw8QxBLm2W3ePOyZbUPC6JK52HbEWgkySBl+YighQy1 P5DfOeOw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tZ5Nk-000000027p1-3EuL; Sat, 18 Jan 2025 09:44:44 +0000 Received: from mail.manjaro.org ([116.203.91.91]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tZ5MS-000000027g5-1K3R; Sat, 18 Jan 2025 09:43:25 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=manjaro.org; s=2021; t=1737193402; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=I6aDo5ka8Hz1xHnLowhFovUyBwjmCI9iuZ6RoWCFqAw=; b=EGlE9CLiPtylGhK28VPh5aMOV9VUjOj5T5jMx46gScMHzjzQgXwsFlkUzbL3+3uAJziLJO 5qLxdwCHXOaY0chHTMPbvXNsmHPPYDHJApMovnxCtd2e28Ffm1pMkV4FR8zFdIYNvT671U 4W7b/XW53zkJpEZdF/5SQOBxPbsqrnx11nCUFAVSr+WBTXpuL/diCw1ce33qdzWgO7eSkg JYCcMJm768MEp5RyQG3nSJLJlsPv5nK2FZddgW9xJPtQ2LH6ImxqsMAcJQxSql5GID147s 09XO0gMh59icTVyWERV9lSL+Z22Q97nhxY0daJaOMTZmok1T+JtPdcRldzw6BQ== Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 10:43:21 +0100 From: Dragan Simic To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Diederik de Haas , Peter Geis , Heiko Stuebner , zyw@rock-chips.com, kever.yang@rock-chips.com, frank.wang@rock-chips.com, william.wu@rock-chips.com, wulf@rock-chips.com, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, Alex Bee , Conor Dooley , Johan Jonker , Jonas Karlman , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Rob Herring , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 4/6] arm64: dts: rockchip: add rk3328 usb3 phy node In-Reply-To: <20b474be-301e-4dc3-9eb7-77e9ef075191@kernel.org> References: <20250115012628.1035928-1-pgwipeout@gmail.com> <20250115012628.1035928-5-pgwipeout@gmail.com> <7c7ce820-8a9b-46df-b143-f77835b7e5a0@kernel.org> <1bc91b4214a1099801aaed6b3ef81ef3@manjaro.org> <60ced7df829e7c10e264627cc0947762@manjaro.org> <20b474be-301e-4dc3-9eb7-77e9ef075191@kernel.org> Message-ID: <3d9ce9fd9b6309553b5669e111bc4200@manjaro.org> X-Sender: dsimic@manjaro.org Authentication-Results: ORIGINATING; auth=pass smtp.auth=dsimic@manjaro.org smtp.mailfrom=dsimic@manjaro.org X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20250118_014324_646656_D293BD4C X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 27.11 ) X-BeenThere: linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Upstream kernel work for Rockchip platforms List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "Linux-rockchip" Errors-To: linux-rockchip-bounces+linux-rockchip=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On 2025-01-18 10:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 18/01/2025 10:25, Dragan Simic wrote: >> On 2025-01-18 09:46, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 17/01/2025 05:10, Dragan Simic wrote: >>>> On 2025-01-16 17:53, Diederik de Haas wrote: >>>>> On Thu Jan 16, 2025 at 2:01 PM CET, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>> On 15/01/2025 02:26, Peter Geis wrote: >>>>>>> Add the node for the rk3328 usb3 phy. This node provides a >>>>>>> combined >>>>>>> usb2 >>>>>>> and usb3 phy which are permenantly tied to the dwc3 usb3 >>>>>>> controller. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Geis >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi | 39 >>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi >>>>>>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi >>>>>>> index 7d992c3c01ce..181a900d41f9 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi >>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi >>>>>>> @@ -903,6 +903,43 @@ u2phy_host: host-port { >>>>>>> }; >>>>>>> }; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> + usb3phy: usb3-phy@ff460000 { >>>>>>> + compatible = "rockchip,rk3328-usb3phy"; >>>>>>> + reg = <0x0 0xff460000 0x0 0x10000>; >>>>>>> + clocks = <&cru SCLK_REF_USB3OTG>, <&cru PCLK_USB3PHY_OTG>, >>>>>>> <&cru >>>>>>> PCLK_USB3PHY_PIPE>; >>>>>> >>>>>> Please wrap code according to coding style (checkpatch is not a >>>>>> coding >>>>>> style description, but only a tool), so at 80. >>>>> >>>>> I'm confused: is it 80 or 100? >>>>> >>>>> I always thought it was 80, but then I saw several patches/commits >>>>> by >>>>> Dragan Simic which deliberately changed code to make use of 100. >>>>> Being fed up with my own confusion, I submitted a PR to >>>>> https://github.com/gregkh/kernel-coding-style/ which got accepted: >>>>> https://github.com/gregkh/kernel-coding-style/commit/5c21f99dc79883bd0efeba368193180275c9c77a >>>>> >>>>> So now both the vim plugins code and README say 100. >>>>> But as noted in my commit message: >>>>> >>>>> Note that the current upstream 'Linux kernel coding style' does >>>>> NOT >>>>> mention the 100 char limit, but only mentions the preferred max >>>>> length >>>>> of 80. >>>>> >>>>> Or is it 100 for code, but 80 for DeviceTree files and bindings? >>>> >>>> I don't know about the DT files and bindings, but the 100-column >>>> limit >>>> for the kernel code has been in effect for years. In this day and >>>> age, >>> >>> That's just false. It was never in effect for years. Read kernel >>> coding >>> style document. >> >> Perhaps it's about the semantics. >> >> Please see the commit bdc48fa11e46 (checkpatch/coding-style: deprecate >> 80-column warning, 2020-05-29), which clearly shows that the 80-column >> rule is still _preferred_, but no longer _mandatory_. > > I brought that commit, but nice that you also found it. > > Still: read the coding style, not checkpatch tool. > >>>> 80 columns is really not much (for the record, I've been around when >>>> using 80x25 _physical_ CRT screens was the norm). >>> >>> You mistake agreement on dropping strong restriction in 2020 in >>> checkpatch, which is "not for years" and even read that commit: "Yes, >>> staying withing 80 columns is certainly still _preferred_." >>> >>> Checkpatch is not coding style. Since when it would be? It's just a >>> tool. >>> >>> And there were more talks and the 80-preference got relaxed yet still >>> "not for years" (last talk was 2022?) and sill kernel coding style is >>> here specific. >> >> It's perhaps again about the semantics, this time about the meaning >> of "for years". I don't think there's some strict definition of that >> term, so perhaps different people see it differently. >> >> To get back to the above-mentioned commit bdc48fa11e46, the 80-column >> limit has obviously been lifted, putting the new 100-column limit as > > "Lifted" on *CHECKPATCH*, not on coding style. Do you see the > difference? One is a helper tool which people were using blindly and > wrapping lines without thinking, claiming that checkpatch told them to > do so. Other is the actual coding style. > > You claim that coding style was changed. This never happened. It was obviously changed in the commit bdc48fa11e46, by making the 80-column width preferred, instead of if being mandatory. The way I read the changes to the coding style introduced in that commit, it's now possible to go over 80 columns, up to 100 columns, _if_ that actually improves the readability of the source code. Just like enforcing the 80-column blindly can make the code much less readable, it's also that going liberally to 100 columns can make the code even less readable. To me, those rules aren't to be followed blindly, but the resulting readability of the code should be the deciding factor for pretty much each line of the code. > And my first - really the first - comment here was also precise > mentioning that difference: > > "Please wrap code according to coding style (*checkpatch is not* a > coding style description, but only a tool), so at 80." Again, I think that the readability should be the deciding factor. _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip