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]

Date:   Fri, 17 Nov 2023 21:04:01 +0100
From:   Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
To:     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,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Andrew Davis <afd@...com>
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

Am Freitag, 17. November 2023, 20:54:05 CET schrieb Andrew Davis:
> On 11/17/23 1:38 PM, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 17. November 2023, 15:03:38 CET schrieb Andrew Davis:
> >> On 11/16/23 2:33 PM, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> >>> Am Donnerstag, 16. November 2023, 21:23:20 CET schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> >>>> On 16/11/2023 21:03, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> >>> going with the vcc5v0_host regulator of the rk3588-quartzpro64 and
> >>>
> >>> +1. compatible
> >>> +2. reg
> >>> +3. ranges
> >>> +4. All properties with values
> >>> +5. Boolean properties
> >>> +6. status (if applicable)
> >>> +7. Child nodes
> >>>
> >>> we'd end up with
> >>>
> >>>           vcc5v0_host: vcc5v0-host-regulator {
> >>> /* 1. */        compatible = "regulator-fixed";
> >>> /* 4. */        gpio = <&gpio4 RK_PB0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> >>>                   pinctrl-names = "default";
> >>>                   pinctrl-0 = <&vcc5v0_host_en>;
> >>>                   regulator-min-microvolt = <5000000>;
> >>>                   regulator-max-microvolt = <5000000>;
> >>>                   regulator-name = "vcc5v0_host";
> >>>                   vin-supply = <&vcc5v0_usb>;
> >>> /* 5. */        enable-active-high;
> >>>                   regulator-always-on;
> >>>                   regulator-boot-on;
> >>>           };
> >>>
> >>
> >> How about grouping like properties (defined in the same schema),
> >> then sorting within that group. Would also allow for defining
> >> where to add spacing.
> >>
> >> 1. compatible
> >> 2. reg
> >> 3. ranges
> >> 4. All property groups
> >>     4.1 Properties with values
> >>     4.2 Boolean properties
> >>     4.3 Separating space
> >> 6. status (if applicable)
> >> 7. Child nodes
> >>
> >> Your node then would look like we expect:
> >>
> >> vcc5v0_host: vcc5v0-host-regulator {
> >> /* 1   */   compatible = "regulator-fixed";
> >>
> >> /* 4.1 */   pinctrl-names = "default";
> >> /* 4.1 */   pinctrl-0 = <&vcc5v0_host_en>;
> >> /* 4.3 */
> >> /* 4.1 */   regulator-min-microvolt = <5000000>;
> >> /* 4.1 */   regulator-max-microvolt = <5000000>;
> >> /* 4.1 */   regulator-name = "vcc5v0_host";
> >> /* 4.2 */   regulator-always-on;
> >> /* 4.2 */   regulator-boot-on;
> >> /* 4.2 */   enable-active-high;
> >> /* 4.3 */
> >> /* 4.1 */   gpio = <&gpio4 RK_PB0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> >> ...
> >> };
> > 
> > I'm really not sure about adding big sets of rules.
> > In the above example you'd also need to define which schema has a higher
> > priority? ;-)
> > 
> > 
> > When I started with Rockchip stuff, I also had some fancy way of sorting
> > elements in mind that was really intuitive to myself :-) .
> > Over time I realized that it was quite complex - especially when I had to
> > explain it to people.
> > 
> > There are definite advantages for having compatible + reg + status in
> > fixed positions, as it helps going over a whole dt to spot the huge
> > mistakes (accidentially disabled, wrong address), but for the rest a
> > simple alphabetical sorting is easiest to explain to people :-) .
> > 
> > And alphabetic elements are also easier on my eyes.
> > 
> 
> +1 for starting with compatible/reg/status that we would like to see
> in the same spot in each node.
> 
> Not so sure on plain alphabetical. That has the same issue you pointed out
> with splitting value vs boolean properties, related properties would end up
> not grouped. Some like regulator- with the same prefix will, but think -gpios
> that is a postfix, they would be scattered about.
> 
> How about just enforcing ordering on the couple common property we care about
> seeing and everything else left free-hand as it today?

Sounds like a very sensible idea :-) .

Especially as the sorting of individual properties is just a tiny part of
Krzysztof's document, and all the other parts in it are way more
important anyway.


Heiko