linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] docs: dt-bindings: add DTS Coding Style document

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: <d8363bac-df41-416a-9043-f6212ad61e13@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 16 Nov 2023 21:23:20 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>,
        Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: dt-bindings: add DTS Coding Style document

On 16/11/2023 21:03, Heiko Stuebner wrote:

>>> I guess the only thing I do have questions about is the part
>>>
>>>> +4. All properties with values
>>>> +5. Boolean properties
>>>
>>> Is there a rationale for it? Because with it things like regulator-*
>>> properties then end up in two different blocks.
>>
>> Good point. It is only a matter of style that this:
>>
>> foo {
>> 	compatible = "foo";
>> 	reg = <0x1>;
>> 	clocks = <&clk>;
>> 	wakeup-source;
>> 	key-autorepeat;
>> }
>>
>> looks better to me than:
>>
>>
>> foo {
>> 	compatible = "foo";
>> 	reg = <0x1>;
>> 	key-autorepeat;
>> 	wakeup-source;
>> 	clocks = <&clk>;
>> }
>>
>> But you have good point that similar properties should be usually
>> grouped together.
>>
>> About which regulator properties are you thinking now? You mean the
>> supplies or the provider?
> 
> I was thinking about the provider. There are 
> 	regulator-min-microvolt = <>;
> and friends, but also
> 	regulator-boot-on;

These are in regulator provider nodes and above guideline would keep
logical order:

	regulator-name = "vdd_kfc";
	regulator-min-microvolt = <800000>;
	regulator-max-microvolt = <1500000>;
	regulator-always-on;
	regulator-boot-on;

	regulator-state-mem {
		regulator-off-in-suspend;
	};

What exactly would be here misordered?

> 
> 
> I guess I would just go with
> 
> 1. compatible
> 2. reg
> 3. ranges
> 4. All other properties
> 5. status (if applicable)
> 6. Child nodes
> 
> aka grouping the old 4+5 together. The difference is probably minimal
> but doesn't create corner cases and you don't need to know if a property
> has a value or is boolean when looking for it.


Best regards,
Krzysztof