linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: pm8998: Add spmi-temp-alarm node

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAD=FV=UVUO+xhTxET_MHuk6CsSfsfRFr_ZUzM0AKW5zzMfk98A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Jul 2018 09:08:34 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" <linux-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: pm8998: Add spmi-temp-alarm node

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org> wrote:
> Quoting Matthias Kaehlcke (2018-07-09 14:25:21)
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8998.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8998.dtsi
>> index 92bed1e7d4bb..7eea94701b23 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8998.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8998.dtsi
>> @@ -11,6 +11,13 @@
>>                 #address-cells = <1>;
>>                 #size-cells = <0>;
>>
>> +               pm8998_temp: temp-alarm@...0 {
>
> Are we sorting this file based on node name or unit address? Otherwise
> patch looks good.

My preference would be:

* Anything where we're defining a new node with an address: sort by the address.

* If we are defining nodes without addresses: sort by node name (not by label!)

* In general I'd prefer to see addressless things before things with addresses.

* If we are overriding nodes that were defined in a parent makefile:
sort by the name of the parent label we refer to.


...so I think Matthias's sort order in this case is correct / consistent.


-Doug