On 26/06/2025 12:19, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > On 26/06/2025 11:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> + reg-names: >>> + items: >>> + - const: csi_clk_mux >> No, I already provided arguments in two lengthy discussions - this is >> not sorted by name. >> >> Keep the same order as in previous device, so msm8916 for example. Or >> any other, but listen to some requests to sort it by some arbitrary rule >> which was never communicated by DT maintainers. > > I don't think if you look through the history that you can find a > consistent rule that was used to arrange the registers. > > So we are trying to have a consistent way of doing that. Thats why the > last number of additions have been sort by name, because it seemed to be > the most consistent.
Why are we discussing it again? You asked me the same here: https://lore.kernel.org/all/8f11c99b-f3ca-4501-aec4-0795643fc...@kernel.org/ and I already said - not sorting by name. You take the same order as previous. If you ever want to sort by name, answer to yourself: NO. Take the same order as other existing device. If you ever want to sort by value, answer to yourself: NO. You both came with some new, invented rules of sorting, applied it, and now you claim that "existing devices were sorted like that". What? NO! Best regards, Krzysztof
