Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:37:13 +0200
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>
Cc:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@kernel.org>,
        Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: Add reference device
Message-ID: <YrM3KX3HLjsYrQvf@hovoldconsulting.com>
References: <20220622041224.627803-1-bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
 <20220622041224.627803-5-bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
 <099cc82f-d52f-315f-189d-bcc40c1afd49@somainline.org>
 <YrMccQXwsz/zC/gl@hovoldconsulting.com>
 <9d0c1897-195f-0548-ea5d-ffc35768f518@somainline.org>
 <b2c9faf0-95a8-772f-c211-f1599b35f8f8@linaro.org>
 <51965fa3-d146-70f1-2ad8-db6197989348@somainline.org>
 <YrM0vhXpY3uWgprs@hovoldconsulting.com>
 <e7d9150b-8332-6394-f6cf-0e59d0cf931b@somainline.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e7d9150b-8332-6394-f6cf-0e59d0cf931b@somainline.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 05:30:24PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 22.06.2022 17:26, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 05:10:50PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >> On 22.06.2022 16:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>> On 22/06/2022 16:36, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >>>> On 22.06.2022 15:43, Johan Hovold wrote:

> >>>>> No, quite the opposite, status go at the end.
> >>>> Then all other device DTs should be updated, as in dts/qcom/
> >>>> everybody keeps it first in non-SoC/PMIC files.
> >>>
> >>> The word "should" is a bit too much here, but I agree, we can update all
> >>> of them to match one, chosen approach.
> >>>
> >>> However the location for "status" property is more important for the
> >>> definition of nodes in DTSI, because it's the least important piece
> >>> there and also kind of expected - here go properties + I disable it. For
> >>> me this is more important.
> > 
> > Right, and this is the argument for keeping status last, something which
> > is well defined.
> > 
> > If you look at some of the qcom dtsi it's hard to determine whether a
> > node is disabled or not because the status property does not actually go
> > "first" but is rather typically mixed up somewhere in the middle (or
> > upper part) of nodes.
> > 
> >>> For node redefinition in DTS, I see benefits in two approaches:
> >>> 1. Let me first enable the node and then configure it.
> >>> 2. Let me configure the node and enable it.
> > 
> > So for consistency, just put status last everywhere (dtsi and dts) and
> > be done with it.
> That works.

Actually, it looks like a lot of the qcom dtsi already do this too (i.e.
put status last). The dts may be more inconsistent on this matter
judging from a quick look.

> >> I looked around non-qcom device trees and it looks like the common
> >> consensus is 2. Although I personally visually prefer 1. and it's
> >> been used in all qcom arm64 DTs to date, I don't think there are any
> >> blockers for us to switch to 1. going forward to keep it consistent.
> > 
> > You mean inconsistent with the majority of dts? ;)
> Not like anything involving Qualcomm was ever consistent or compliant
> with the majority :D

Heh. :)

Johan