On 18/01/2025 10:25, Dragan Simic wrote:

Hello Krzysztof,

On 2025-01-18 09:46, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 17/01/2025 05:10, Dragan Simic wrote:

quoted

On 2025-01-16 17:53, Diederik de Haas wrote:

quoted

On Thu Jan 16, 2025 at 2:01 PM CET, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 15/01/2025 02:26, Peter Geis wrote:

quoted

Add the node for the rk3328 usb3 phy. This node provides a combined 
usb2
and usb3 phy which are permenantly tied to the dwc3 usb3 
controller.

Signed-off-by: Peter Geis <redacted>
---

 arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi | 39 
++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi 

b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi
index 7d992c3c01ce..181a900d41f9 100644

--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi

@@ -903,6 +903,43 @@ u2phy_host: host-port {
 		};
 	};

+	usb3phy: usb3-phy@ff460000 {
+		compatible = "rockchip,rk3328-usb3phy";
+		reg = <0x0 0xff460000 0x0 0x10000>;
+		clocks = <&cru SCLK_REF_USB3OTG>, <&cru PCLK_USB3PHY_OTG>, <&cru 

PCLK_USB3PHY_PIPE>;

Please wrap code according to coding style (checkpatch is not a 
coding
style description, but only a tool), so at 80.

I'm confused: is it 80 or 100?

I always thought it was 80, but then I saw several patches/commits by
Dragan Simic which deliberately changed code to make use of 100.
Being fed up with my own confusion, I submitted a PR to
https://github.com/gregkh/kernel-coding-style/ which got accepted:
https://github.com/gregkh/kernel-coding-style/commit/5c21f99dc79883bd0efeba368193180275c9c77a

So now both the vim plugins code and README say 100.
But as noted in my commit message:

  Note that the current upstream 'Linux kernel coding style' does NOT
  mention the 100 char limit, but only mentions the preferred max
length
  of 80.

Or is it 100 for code, but 80 for DeviceTree files and bindings?

I don't know about the DT files and bindings, but the 100-column limit
for the kernel code has been in effect for years.  In this day and 
age,

That's just false. It was never in effect for years. Read kernel coding
style document.

Perhaps it's about the semantics.

Please see the commit bdc48fa11e46 (checkpatch/coding-style: deprecate
80-column warning, 2020-05-29), which clearly shows that the 80-column
rule is still _preferred_, but no longer _mandatory_.

I brought that commit, but nice that you also found it.

Still: read the coding style, not checkpatch tool.

quoted

quoted

80 columns is really not much (for the record, I've been around when
using 80x25 _physical_ CRT screens was the norm).

You mistake agreement on dropping strong restriction in 2020 in
checkpatch, which is "not for years" and even read that commit: "Yes,
staying withing 80 columns is certainly still _preferred_."

Checkpatch is not coding style. Since when it would be? It's just a 
tool.

And there were more talks and the 80-preference got relaxed yet still
"not for years" (last talk was 2022?) and sill kernel coding style is
here specific.

It's perhaps again about the semantics, this time about the meaning
of "for years".  I don't think there's some strict definition of that
term, so perhaps different people see it differently.

To get back to the above-mentioned commit bdc48fa11e46, the 80-column
limit has obviously been lifted, putting the new 100-column limit as

"Lifted" on *CHECKPATCH*, not on coding style. Do you see the
difference? One is a helper tool which people were using blindly and
wrapping lines without thinking, claiming that checkpatch told them to
do so. Other is the actual coding style.

You claim that coding style was changed. This never happened.

And my first  - really the first - comment here was also precise
mentioning that difference:

"Please wrap code according to coding style (*checkpatch is not* a
coding style description, but only a tool), so at 80."


Best regards,
Krzysztof