Re: [PATCH v10 04/10] arm64/sysreg: Add a comment that the sysreg file should be sorted

[James Clark]

On 12/01/2025 12:49 pm, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 11:32:41 +0000,
> James Clark <james.clark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: James Clark <james.clark@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > There are a few entries particularly at the end of the file that aren't
> > in order. To avoid confusion, add a comment that might help new entries
> > to be added in the right place.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: James Clark <james.clark@xxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: James Clark <james.clark@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   arch/arm64/tools/sysreg | 2 ++
> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg b/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg
> > index b081b54d6d22..4ba167089e2a 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg
> > @@ -48,6 +48,8 @@
> >   # feature that introduces them (eg, FEAT_LS64_ACCDATA introduces enumeration
> >   # item ACCDATA) though it may be more taseful to do something else.
> >   
> > +# Please try to keep entries in this file sorted by sysreg encoding.
> > +
> >   Sysreg	OSDTRRX_EL1	2	0	0	0	2
> >   Res0	63:32
> >   Field	31:0	DTRRX
>
> "Do as I say, don't do as I do".
>
> I don't think this makes any sense if we don't actually sort the file
> the first place.
>
> 	M.

I think it's ok if it avoids review comments that new entries should be 
sorted. Or maybe we do the opposite and the comment should say this file 
is allowed to be unsorted...