linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: rockchip: add rock5 itx board

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: <4552794.8F6SAcFxjW@diego>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 12:05:10 +0200
From: Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
To: linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
 Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@...ow.org>
Cc: robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: rockchip: add rock5 itx board

Hi Diederik,

Am Donnerstag, 4. Juli 2024, 11:38:51 CEST schrieb Diederik de Haas:
> Thanks for submitting this. A quick scan indicates it should work with a 
> (recent) Debian kernel OOTB :-)
> 
> On Wednesday, 3 July 2024 23:05:24 CEST Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> > +&sdhci {
> > +       bus-width = <8>;
> > +       no-sdio;
> > +       no-sd;
> > +       non-removable;
> > +       max-frequency = <200000000>;
> > +       mmc-hs400-1_8v;
> > +       mmc-hs400-enhanced-strobe;
> > +       mmc-hs200-1_8v;
> > +       status = "okay";
> > +};
> > +
> > +&sdmmc {
> > +       max-frequency = <200000000>;
> > +       no-sdio;
> > +       no-mmc;
> > +       bus-width = <4>;
> > +       cap-mmc-highspeed;
> > +       cap-sd-highspeed;
> > +       disable-wp;
> > +       sd-uhs-sdr104;
> > +       vmmc-supply = <&vcc_3v3_s3>;
> > +       vqmmc-supply = <&vccio_sd_s0>;
> > +       pinctrl-names = "default";
> > +       pinctrl-0 = <&sdmmc_bus4 &sdmmc_clk &sdmmc_cmd &sdmmc_det>;
> > +       status = "okay";
> > +};
> > +
> > +/* M.2 E-KEY */
> > +&sdio {
> > +       broken-cd;
> > +       bus-width = <4>;
> > +       cap-sdio-irq;
> > +       disable-wp;
> > +       keep-power-in-suspend;
> > +       max-frequency = <150000000>;
> > +       mmc-pwrseq = <&sdio_pwrseq>;
> > +       no-sd;
> > +       no-mmc;
> > +       non-removable;
> > +       pinctrl-names = "default";
> > +       pinctrl-0 = <&sdiom0_pins>;
> > +       sd-uhs-sdr104;
> > +       vmmc-supply = <&vcc3v3_ekey>;
> > +       status = "okay";
> > +};
> > +
> > +&sfc {
> > +       pinctrl-names = "default";
> > +       pinctrl-0 = <&fspim2_pins>;
> > +       status = "okay";
> 
> Shouldn't those properties be sorted alphabetically? Or at least consistently?
> Note that the same issue is present on other places too, but I believe the 
> above quoted part shows the issue enough.

The main sorting is
- compatible
- reg
[... alphabetically ...]
- status

But now that I look at it, you're right there are some non-alphabetical
shenanigans going on there in the sdmmc and sdhci nodes ;-)

Heiko