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

[Konrad Dybcio]

On 22.06.2022 17:37, Johan Hovold wrote:
> 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.
Yes, as I mentioned this concerns the device-specific trees, as
the includable ones are (or well, should have been made) fine.

Konrad
> 
>>>> 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