Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: Add reference device

[Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 05:30:24PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 22.06.2022 17:26, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 05:10:50PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >> On 22.06.2022 16:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>> On 22/06/2022 16:36, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >>>> On 22.06.2022 15:43, Johan Hovold wrote:

> >>>>> No, quite the opposite, status go at the end.
> >>>> Then all other device DTs should be updated, as in dts/qcom/
> >>>> everybody keeps it first in non-SoC/PMIC files.
> >>>
> >>> The word "should" is a bit too much here, but I agree, we can update all
> >>> of them to match one, chosen approach.
> >>>
> >>> However the location for "status" property is more important for the
> >>> definition of nodes in DTSI, because it's the least important piece
> >>> there and also kind of expected - here go properties + I disable it. For
> >>> me this is more important.
> > 
> > Right, and this is the argument for keeping status last, something which
> > is well defined.
> > 
> > If you look at some of the qcom dtsi it's hard to determine whether a
> > node is disabled or not because the status property does not actually go
> > "first" but is rather typically mixed up somewhere in the middle (or
> > upper part) of nodes.
> > 
> >>> For node redefinition in DTS, I see benefits in two approaches:
> >>> 1. Let me first enable the node and then configure it.
> >>> 2. Let me configure the node and enable it.
> > 
> > So for consistency, just put status last everywhere (dtsi and dts) and
> > be done with it.
> That works.

Actually, it looks like a lot of the qcom dtsi already do this too (i.e.
put status last). The dts may be more inconsistent on this matter
judging from a quick look.

> >> I looked around non-qcom device trees and it looks like the common
> >> consensus is 2. Although I personally visually prefer 1. and it's
> >> been used in all qcom arm64 DTs to date, I don't think there are any
> >> blockers for us to switch to 1. going forward to keep it consistent.
> > 
> > You mean inconsistent with the majority of dts? ;)
> Not like anything involving Qualcomm was ever consistent or compliant
> with the majority :D

Heh. :)

Johan