Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: rockchip: add rock5 itx board

[Alex Bee]

Am 04.07.24 um 14:05 schrieb Heiko Stübner:
> Am Donnerstag, 4. Juli 2024, 13:43:47 CEST schrieb Alex Bee:
> > Am 04.07.24 um 12:05 schrieb Heiko Stübner:
> > > Hi Diederik,
> > >
> > > Am Donnerstag, 4. Juli 2024, 11:38:51 CEST schrieb Diederik de Haas:
> > > > Thanks for submitting this. A quick scan indicates it should work with a
> > > > (recent) Debian kernel OOTB :-)
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, 3 July 2024 23:05:24 CEST Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> > > > > +&sdhci {
> > > > > +       bus-width = <8>;
> > > > > +       no-sdio;
> > > > > +       no-sd;
> > > > > +       non-removable;
> > > > > +       max-frequency = <200000000>;
> > > > > +       mmc-hs400-1_8v;
> > > > > +       mmc-hs400-enhanced-strobe;
> > > > > +       mmc-hs200-1_8v;
> > > > > +       status = "okay";
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > +&sdmmc {
> > > > > +       max-frequency = <200000000>;
> > > > > +       no-sdio;
> > > > > +       no-mmc;
> > > > > +       bus-width = <4>;
> > > > > +       cap-mmc-highspeed;
> > > > > +       cap-sd-highspeed;
> > > > > +       disable-wp;
> > > > > +       sd-uhs-sdr104;
> > > > > +       vmmc-supply = <&vcc_3v3_s3>;
> > > > > +       vqmmc-supply = <&vccio_sd_s0>;
> > > > > +       pinctrl-names = "default";
> > > > > +       pinctrl-0 = <&sdmmc_bus4 &sdmmc_clk &sdmmc_cmd &sdmmc_det>;
> > > > > +       status = "okay";
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/* M.2 E-KEY */
> > > > > +&sdio {
> > > > > +       broken-cd;
> > > > > +       bus-width = <4>;
> > > > > +       cap-sdio-irq;
> > > > > +       disable-wp;
> > > > > +       keep-power-in-suspend;
> > > > > +       max-frequency = <150000000>;
> > > > > +       mmc-pwrseq = <&sdio_pwrseq>;
> > > > > +       no-sd;
> > > > > +       no-mmc;
> > > > > +       non-removable;
> > > > > +       pinctrl-names = "default";
> > > > > +       pinctrl-0 = <&sdiom0_pins>;
> > > > > +       sd-uhs-sdr104;
> > > > > +       vmmc-supply = <&vcc3v3_ekey>;
> > > > > +       status = "okay";
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > +&sfc {
> > > > > +       pinctrl-names = "default";
> > > > > +       pinctrl-0 = <&fspim2_pins>;
> > > > > +       status = "okay";
> > > > Shouldn't those properties be sorted alphabetically? Or at least consistently?
> > > > Note that the same issue is present on other places too, but I believe the
> > > > above quoted part shows the issue enough.
> > > The main sorting is
> > > - compatible
> > > - reg
> > > [... alphabetically ...]
> > > - status
> > Yeah ... that's always the question when adding new board files. Do it like
> > "it's always been done" or re-sort the properties alphanumeric _everywhere_
> > which looks quite strange at times. If I'm getting the newly added dt
> > coding style correctly common (subsystem?) properties should also be placed
> > before vendor (driver?) specific ones. Yet I didn't see a board file which
> > places 'regulator-max-microvolt' before 'regulator-min-microvolt'. So I
> > guess it's fine if it's done consistently within the same file?
> I always see it as a best-effort thing. If all regulator-* stuff is grouped
> together it will be mostly fine. I'm not going to haggle over the sorting
> of the 10th character of property names ;-) .
>
> (and of course reading min before max, is sort of more intuitive)
>
> And of course leaf-things (board dts) are less "important" than the core
> nodes in soc devicetrees.
Great, thanks for sharing. Will (try) to follow in future.

Alex

>