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

[Marc Zyngier]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 15:43:39 +0000,
James Clark <james.clark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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...

The better option would be to add the comment *and* sort the file.
Leading by example has some value, it seems.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.