Re: [RFC PATCH v1 4/6] arm64: dts: rockchip: add rk3328 usb3 phy node

From: "Diederik de Haas" <didi.debian@cknow.org>
To: "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk@kernel.org>,
	"Peter Geis" <pgwipeout@gmail.com>,
	"Heiko Stuebner" <heiko@sntech.de>
Cc: <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" <knaerzche@gmail.com>,
	"Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Dragan Simic" <dsimic@manjaro.org>,
	"Johan Jonker" <jbx6244@gmail.com>,
	"Jonas Karlman" <jonas@kwiboo.se>,
	"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>, <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
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 16:55:24 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <D75BKUFGD6OE.1767NEFXCRJEJ@cknow.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e1097f84-e40f-45ff-8b8d-125f7159ec1e@kernel.org>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2587 bytes --]

On Sat Jan 18, 2025 at 9:41 AM CET, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 16/01/2025 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:
> >>> 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
>
> Coding style is clear: it is 80. It also has caveat about code
> readability and several maintainers have their own preference.
>
> > 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
>
> That's not kernel. That's Greg...

FWIW: what Greg and Linus think/say is relevant to me.

> > 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?
>
> From where did you get 100? Checkpatch, right? Kernel coding style is
> clear, there is no discussion, no mentioning 100:
>
> "The preferred limit on the length of a single line is 80 columns. "
>
> So to be clear: all DTS, all DT bindings, all code maintained by me and
> some maintainers follows above (and further - there is caveat)
> instruction from coding style. Some maintainers follow other rules and
> that's fine.

But indeed, before Greg or Linus (likely) see it, a patch submitter
needs to convince the (subsystem) maintainer that it is an improvement.

Thanks for the clarification :-)

Cheers,
  Diederik

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 170 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip