Re: [RFC PATCH v1 4/6] arm64: dts: rockchip: add rk3328 usb3 phy node
From: Dragan Simic
Date: Sat Jan 18 2025 - 04:25:16 EST
Hello Krzysztof,
On 2025-01-18 09:46, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 17/01/2025 05:10, Dragan Simic wrote:
On 2025-01-16 17:53, Diederik de Haas wrote:
On Thu Jan 16, 2025 at 2:01 PM CET, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 15/01/2025 02:26, Peter Geis wrote:
Add the node for the rk3328 usb3 phy. This node provides a combined
usb2
and usb3 phy which are permenantly tied to the dwc3 usb3
controller.
Signed-off-by: Peter Geis <pgwipeout@xxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi | 39
++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi
b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi
index 7d992c3c01ce..181a900d41f9 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi
@@ -903,6 +903,43 @@ u2phy_host: host-port {
};
};
+ usb3phy: usb3-phy@ff460000 {
+ compatible = "rockchip,rk3328-usb3phy";
+ reg = <0x0 0xff460000 0x0 0x10000>;
+ clocks = <&cru SCLK_REF_USB3OTG>, <&cru PCLK_USB3PHY_OTG>, <&cru
PCLK_USB3PHY_PIPE>;
Please wrap code according to coding style (checkpatch is not a
coding
style description, but only a tool), so at 80.
I'm confused: is it 80 or 100?
I always thought it was 80, but then I saw several patches/commits by
Dragan Simic which deliberately changed code to make use of 100.
Being fed up with my own confusion, I submitted a PR to
https://github.com/gregkh/kernel-coding-style/ which got accepted:
https://github.com/gregkh/kernel-coding-style/commit/5c21f99dc79883bd0efeba368193180275c9c77a
So now both the vim plugins code and README say 100.
But as noted in my commit message:
Note that the current upstream 'Linux kernel coding style' does NOT
mention the 100 char limit, but only mentions the preferred max
length
of 80.
Or is it 100 for code, but 80 for DeviceTree files and bindings?
I don't know about the DT files and bindings, but the 100-column limit
for the kernel code has been in effect for years. In this day and
age,
That's just false. It was never in effect for years. Read kernel coding
style document.
Perhaps it's about the semantics.
Please see the commit bdc48fa11e46 (checkpatch/coding-style: deprecate
80-column warning, 2020-05-29), which clearly shows that the 80-column
rule is still _preferred_, but no longer _mandatory_.
80 columns is really not much (for the record, I've been around when
using 80x25 _physical_ CRT screens was the norm).
You mistake agreement on dropping strong restriction in 2020 in
checkpatch, which is "not for years" and even read that commit: "Yes,
staying withing 80 columns is certainly still _preferred_."
Checkpatch is not coding style. Since when it would be? It's just a
tool.
And there were more talks and the 80-preference got relaxed yet still
"not for years" (last talk was 2022?) and sill kernel coding style is
here specific.
It's perhaps again about the semantics, this time about the meaning
of "for years". I don't think there's some strict definition of that
term, so perhaps different people see it differently.
To get back to the above-mentioned commit bdc48fa11e46, the 80-column
limit has obviously been lifted, putting the new 100-column limit as
an option for those who prefer having fewer "artificial" line breaks
over adhering strictly to the rules.
Thus, as a maintainer, you're obviously free to enforce the 80-column
limit of you want so.
If my opinion counts, I'd agree with the 80-column limit when it comes
to the device trees and bindings. Keeping those files at the lower
width usually makes them more readable to me. However, enforcing the
80-column limit in C and header files very often leads to having line
breaks that do nothing but make the code look a bit silly.