From: Michael Riesch <michael.riesch@wolfvision.net>
To: "Heiko Stübner" <heiko@sntech.de>,
"Piotr Oniszczuk" <piotr.oniszczuk@gmail.com>,
"Peter Geis" <pgwipeout@gmail.com>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..."
<linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org>,
"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Nicolas Frattaroli <frattaroli.nicolas@gmail.com>,
Liang Chen <cl@rock-chips.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: rockchip: rename and sort the rk356x usb2 phy handles
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2022 10:56:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d203569c-bae1-c35a-204a-53617170d3b3@wolfvision.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3736463.EBuT6JFcjP@diego>
Hello Heiko,
On 1/29/22 16:28, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Am Samstag, 29. Januar 2022, 10:59:32 CET schrieb Michael Riesch:
>> Hello Peter and Piotr,
>>
>> On 1/29/22 10:23, Piotr Oniszczuk wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good Evening,
>>>>
>>>> While I'm not against this idea, my main concern still stands.
>>>> I spent a great deal of thought on this, and decided to go the route I
>>>> did to maintain consistency with previous generations.
>>>> As such, I see one of three paths here:
>>>> - Pull this patch only and depart rk356x from previous SoCs.
>>>> - Do the same for previous SoCs to maintain consistency.
>>>> - Drop this patch to maintain consistency with previous SoCs.
>>>>
>>>> I ask that others weigh in here, as offline discussion has produced
>>>> mixed results already.
>>>
>>> just pure user perspective
>>>
>>> (who spent last weeks considerable time to develop DT for rk3566 tvbox. 99% of my work was by reading/learning from other boards existing DT's. Any inconsistencies in DTs makes work for such ppl like me much more harder):
>>>
>>> For option 1 - i don't see value
>>> For option 2 - what is reward for extra work needs to be done on all other SoCs?
>>>
>>> so option 3 seems to be natural choice...
>>>
>>> in other words:
>>>
>>> for me:
>>> option 1 brings practically zero value + increased inconsistency.
>>> option 2: extra work - but consistency is like in option 3 (so where is value?)
>>>
>>> so option 3 offers the same consistency - but without extra work...
>>>
>>> just my 0.02$
>>
>> Of course this change is purely cosmetic and it is reasonable to ask for
>> the practical value. It is just that technically the quartz64 dts is not
>> sorted alphabetically at the moment. The u2phy* nodes should be but
>> before the uart* nodes to follow the convention. On the other hand, it
>> may be nice to have the usb2 phys and controllers grouped in the dts.
>> The proposed renaming would allow all the mentioned nodes sorted
>> alphabetically and grouped logically.
>>
>> Therefore I had option 1 in mind. I don't see any dependencies between
>> the different SoCs and think we can make a fresh start here.
>
> correct :-) .
>
> I do see each SoC individually and while I try to have people follow some
> styling guidelines everywhere (ordering of properties, ordering of nodes)
> I don't really want people to fear what some other SoC has done before.
>
> But even these rules evolve sometimes, when something seems to work
> better than before.
>
> We have nowadays 9 years of Rockchip SoC history in the kernel.
> Thanks to general dt-binding conventions most nodes have specific
> names anyway (mmc@... etc), but for example trying to rename stuff
> in older SoCs that has worked for years now is for one error-prone
> as Michael pointed out, but also introduces unnecessary churn,
> when these old SoCs (thinking of rk3188, rk3288 and friends but also things
> like the rk3368) are essentially "finished" and most likely won't see that
> much additional support for stuff added.
So... may I take it that you are going to apply the patches in this series?
Or should I switch to option 3 and re-submit?
Thanks and best regards,
Michael
>
>
> Heiko
>
>
>> Option 2 is not really feasible, we would almost definitely break
>> something existent.
>>
>> Option 3 is feasible, of course. However, I would sort the nodes
>> alphabetically (u2phy*, then uart*, then usb*). Works for me as well,
>> although it is not that nice IMHO.
>>
>> Since many boards with the RK3566 and RK3568 will pop up in near future
>> we should do the change right now (if we want to do it), as of course
>> all the board files need to be changed. Therefore I wanted to bring this
>> matter up now. Let's agree on something and move on.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Michael
>>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-30 9:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-27 19:04 [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: rockchip: rename and sort the rk356x usb2 phy handles Michael Riesch
2022-01-27 19:04 ` [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: rockchip: add usb2 support to rk3568-evb1-v10 Michael Riesch
2022-01-27 23:32 ` [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: rockchip: rename and sort the rk356x usb2 phy handles Peter Geis
2022-01-29 9:23 ` Piotr Oniszczuk
2022-01-29 9:59 ` Michael Riesch
2022-01-29 15:28 ` Heiko Stübner
2022-01-30 9:56 ` Michael Riesch [this message]
2022-01-30 11:02 ` Heiko Stübner
2022-02-08 16:59 ` Heiko Stuebner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=d203569c-bae1-c35a-204a-53617170d3b3@wolfvision.net \
--to=michael.riesch@wolfvision.net \
--cc=cl@rock-chips.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=frattaroli.nicolas@gmail.com \
--cc=heiko@sntech.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=pgwipeout@gmail.com \
--cc=piotr.oniszczuk@gmail.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox