Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] arm64: dts: bst: add support for Black Sesame Technologies C1200 CDCU1.0 board
From: Albert Yang <hidden>
Date: 2025-09-03 07:09:10
On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 08:14:05AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 03/09/2025 05:40, Albert Yang wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
+ gic: interrupt-controller@32800000 { + compatible = "arm,gic-v3"; + #interrupt-cells = <3>; + #address-cells = <2>; + #size-cells = <2>; + interrupt-controller; + ranges; + reg = <0x0 0x32800000 0x0 0x10000>, + <0x0 0x32880000 0x0 0x100000>;Random order...Refs: arm,gic‑v3 binding https://raw.githubusercontent.com/torvalds/linux/master/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/arm,gic-v3.yaml Updated as follows:No, you need to finally read and follow DTS coding style.quoted
gic: interrupt-controller@32800000 { compatible = "arm,gic-v3";
Thank you for pointing out the DTS coding style requirements. I have now carefully reviewed the documentation and updated the GIC node as follows. I have a question regarding the property ordering. According to the DTS coding style documentation at: https://docs.kernel.org/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.html The preferred order of properties in device nodes is: 1.“compatible” 2.“reg” 3.“ranges” 4.Standard/common properties (defined by common bindings, e.g. without vendor-prefixes) 5.Vendor-specific properties 6.“status” (if applicable) 7.Child nodes, where each node is preceded with a blank line However, I'm uncertain about how to order properties that start with "#". I have treated them as standard/common properties and updated the node as follows. Could you please confirm if this approach is correct? gic: interrupt-controller@32800000 { compatible = "arm,gic-v3"; reg = <0x0 0x32800000 0x0 0x10000>, <0x0 0x32880000 0x0 0x100000>; ranges; #address-cells = <2>; #interrupt-cells = <3>; interrupt-controller; interrupts = <GIC_PPI 9 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>; #size-cells = <2>; }; I apologize for missing one of your previous comments. I will address it here:
quoted
+ +&uart0 { + status = "okay"; +}; + +&mmc0 {This is none of the two approved ordering styles from DTS coding style. What sort of coding style are you using?
You are absolutely right. I have corrected the node ordering to follow
the alphabetical style as specified in the DTS coding style documentation:
&mmc0 {
bus-width = <8>;
memory-region = <&mmc0_reserved>;
non-removable;
status = "okay";
};
&uart0 {
status = "okay";
};
Thank you very much for your thorough review and patience. I will ensure
that all future submissions strictly follow the DTS coding style guidelines.
If you have any additional feedback, please let me know, and I will address
it promptly to maintain consistency throughout the patch series.
Best regards,
Albert