On 11/17/2014 12:00 AM, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Sören Brinkmann
> <soren.brinkmann at xilinx.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2014-11-16 at 11:51AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>> Hi Michal,
>>>
>>> Am 14.11.2014 um 11:52 schrieb Michal Simek:
>>>> 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.
IMHO the reason why we have names in DT is that it is easily to read/understand them
that's why name sorting seems to me more reasonable.
Something like machine code and assembler - asm is also sorted by names not by opcode.
Is this strict rule?
Thanks,
Michal