Re: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: dts: UniPhier: add ProXstream2 and PH1-LD6b SoC/board support

[Olof Johansson]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Olof,
>
>
> 2015-08-11 22:07 GMT+09:00 Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 08:21:04PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>>> Initial version of DTSI for ProXstream2 and PH1-LD6b and DTS for
>>> PH1-LD6b reference board.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile                  |   3 +-
>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-ph1-ld6b-ref.dts | 105 +++++++++++
>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-ph1-ld6b.dtsi    |  67 +++++++
>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-proxstream2.dtsi | 273 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  4 files changed, 447 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>  create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-ph1-ld6b-ref.dts
>>>  create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-ph1-ld6b.dtsi
>>>  create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-proxstream2.dtsi
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile b/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile
>>> index 246473a..6eb3f2f 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile
>>> @@ -645,7 +645,8 @@ dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_UNIPHIER) += \
>>>       uniphier-ph1-sld3-ref.dtb \
>>>       uniphier-ph1-ld4-ref.dtb \
>>>       uniphier-ph1-pro4-ref.dtb \
>>> -     uniphier-ph1-sld8-ref.dtb
>>> +     uniphier-ph1-sld8-ref.dtb \
>>> +     uniphier-ph1-ld6b-ref.dtb
>>
>> Please always add entries here sorted, don't just append. I've fixed it
>> up for you this time.
>>
>>
>
> Please do not do that (without my ack).

I'm not going to go get your ack for something as trivial as this. We
do make sure subplatform maintainers are in the loop and get to review
code that touches their platform, but in this case this was a shared
makefile and there were no functional changes.

> It was already sorted from old SoC to new SoC.
>
> Sorting chronologically (in other words, in the order of chip ID)
> makes more sense than sorting alphabetically.

No, it doesn't. All entries in these files should be sorted
alphabetically. Sometimes we miss out on it, but it's the goal.

If you sort chronologically it's impossible for anyone but people
intimately familiar with UniPhier's product history to add any new
entries in the right location. Also, since it's likely that newer
chips will be introduced over time, new entries are likely to just be
appends instead of inserted at more varied locations in the files.

Append-only additions are more likely to have add/add conflicts, which
is why we're preferring alphabetical sort order in the first place.


-Olof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/