[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a52969f2-8ea2-41e5-b4c8-8a03220cbf51@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2025 12:11:17 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Faraz Ata <faraz.ata@...sung.com>, alim.akhtar@...sung.com,
robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rosa.pila@...sung.com, dev.tailor@...sung.com, suyash.bitti@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: exynos: Add DT node for all UART ports
On 11/04/2025 09:07, Faraz Ata wrote:
> Hello Krzysztof
>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: exynos: Add DT node for all UART ports
>>
>> On 18/03/2025 08:56, Faraz Ata wrote:
>>> +
>>> + usi_17: usi@...800c0 {
>>
>> Messed order. Keep nodes sorted by unit address (see DTS coding style).
>>
>>
> Thanks for your review
> Based on the DTS coding style, it is acceptable to group nodes
> of the same type together, even if it breaks the unit address ordering.
That's accepted alternative because some subsystems do that way. I don't
think we ever applied such rule to Samsung? Do you have any prior
reference about this? I accepted mess in the past, but that does not
mean that mess is the rule.
> https://docs.kernel.org/6.12/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.html
> Please let me know your opinion on this.
> Do you mean I should move all the USI_ node after pwm node?
Please it according to sorting by unit address.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists