On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:32 AM, S?ren Brinkmann
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Sun, 2014-11-16 at 11:51AM +0100, Andreas F?rber wrote:

quoted

Hi Michal,

Am 14.11.2014 um 11:52 schrieb Michal Simek:

quoted

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
index ce2ef5bec4f2..e217fb1c1169 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi

@@ -150,6 +150,13 @@
                    reg = <0xf8006000 0x1000>;
            };

+           ocmc: memory-controller at f800c000 {
+                   compatible = "xlnx,zynq-ocmc-1.0";
+                   interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
+                   interrupts = <0 3 4>;
+                   reg = <0xf800c000 0x1000>;
+           };
+
            uart0: serial at e0000000 {
                    compatible = "xlnx,xuartps", "cdns,uart-r1p8";
                    status = "disabled";

Not directly related to this patch: As one can see here, the node order
is quite a mess... According to Olof, nodes should be ordered by unit
address, whereas here some but not all seem ordered by node name. Would
you welcome a cleanup patch, or can you fix that yourself?

I wouldn't say it's a mess, just a different property to sort the nodes
by. For humans reading the DT, searching for nodes, alphabetical order
helps finding the right node, IMHO.

I do generally find myself asking "whats that thing at that address"
more than I find myself asking the "wheres that piece of hardware" so
Andreas' sorting scheme makes more sense to me. Vertically scanning a
DT to give yourself an overview of the system level address map is
good too. Wheras alphabetic sorting doesn't mean to much.

Regards,
Peter

What advantage would sorting by

address have?

        Thanks,
        S?ren
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/