On 26/06/2025 11:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
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
OK.
Discussed this on Slack with Krzysztof.
8939 should be like 8916 because these are devices of a similar class.
x1e has a particular order if a new device x1e+1 comes along with a new
register then
reg-names:
23 items:
24 - const: csid0
25 - const: csid1
26 - const: csid2
27 - const: csid_lite0
28 - const: csid_lite1
29 - const: csid_wrapper
30 - const: csiphy0
31 - const: csiphy1
32 - const: csiphy2
33 - const: csiphy4
34 - const: csitpg0
35 - const: csitpg1
36 - const: csitpg2
37 - const: vfe0
38 - const: vfe1
39 - const: vfe_lite0
40 - const: vfe_lite1
reg-names:
23 items:
24 - const: csid0
25 - const: csid1
26 - const: csid2
27 - const: csid_lite0
28 - const: csid_lite1
29 - const: csid_wrapper
30 - const: csiphy0
31 - const: csiphy1
32 - const: csiphy2
33 - const: csiphy4
34 - const: csitpg0
35 - const: csitpg1
36 - const: csitpg2
37 - const: vfe0
38 - const: vfe1
39 - const: vfe_lite0
40 - const: vfe_lite1
- NEW ENTRY GOES HERE csid3
A new SoC with a significantly different architecture could have
different ordering of regs.
The main block should go first which means the above should look like:
reg-names:
23 items:
24 - const: csid_wrapper
25 - const: csid0
26 - const: csid1
27 - const: csid2
28 - const: csid_lite0
29 - const: csid_lite1
30 - const: csiphy0
31 - const: csiphy1
32 - const: csiphy2
33 - const: csiphy4
34 - const: csitpg0
35 - const: csitpg1
36 - const: csitpg2
37 - const: vfe0
38 - const: vfe1
39 - const: vfe_lite0
40 - const: vfe_lite1
I think I personally haven't understood what was meant by "devices of a
class" but its clearer now.
Appreciate the explanation.
---
bod
