Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: dts: rockchip: rk3328: Add Radxa ROCK Pi E

From: Heiko Stübner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 21:06:39 +0100

Hi,

Am Sonntag, 10. Januar 2021, 16:37:15 CET schrieb Chen-Yu Tsai:
> > > +     vcc_sd: sdmmc-regulator {
> > > +             compatible = "regulator-fixed";
> > > +             gpio = <&gpio0 RK_PD6 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> > > +             pinctrl-names = "default";
> > > +             pinctrl-0 = <&sdmmc0m1_pin>;
> >
> > > +             regulator-boot-on;
> > > +             regulator-name = "vcc_sd";
> >
> > regulator-name above other regulator properties
> 
> That is actually what I was used to, but some other rockchip dts files
> have all the properties sorted alphabetically. So I stuck with what I
> saw.

I try to keep it alphabetical except for the exceptions :-D .

regulator-name is such an exception. Similar to compatibles, the
regulator-name is an entry needed to see if you're at the right node,
so I really like it being the topmost regulator-foo property - just makes
reading easier.

(same for the compatible first, then regs, interrupts parts, as well
as "status-last")

But oftentimes, I just fix the ordering when applying - but seem to have
missed this somewhere in those "other Rockchip dts files" ;-) .

> > regulator voltage missing
> > make things as complete as possible
> >
> > from fixed-regulator.yaml:
> >
> > description:
> >   Any property defined as part of the core regulator binding, defined in
> >   regulator.yaml, can also be used. However a fixed voltage regulator is
> >   expected to have the regulator-min-microvolt and regulator-max-microvolt
> >   to be the same.
> 
> However this is not a real regulator; it is merely an on/off switch.
> I believe in this case it should just pass through the voltage from
> its upstream.

regulator-voltages are not marked required so can stay away if it's just
a dumb switch. I guess it's ok both ways and for individual board-
devicetrees the impact either way is minimal.

> > > +&i2c1 {
> > > +     status = "okay";
> > > +
> > > +     rk805: pmic@18 {
> > > +             compatible = "rockchip,rk805";
> > > +             reg = <0x18>;
> > > +             interrupt-parent = <&gpio2>;
> > > +             interrupts = <6 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
> >
> > > +             #clock-cells = <1>;
> >
> > all thing that start with "#" down the list
> 
> Is there a proper "preferred" sorting method defined somewhere?

I struggle with that often as well, but normally I'd do #clocks to clocks
with out "#", but really don't have a hard preference here.

especially as just ignoring the "#" would make #address-cells + #size-cells
look strangely sorted ... so more of a common sense thingy.

> > > +             eth_phy_int_pin: eth-phy-int-pin {
> > > +                     rockchip,pins = <1 RK_PD0 RK_FUNC_GPIO &pcfg_pull_down>;
> > > +             };
> > > +
> > > +             eth_phy_reset_pin: eth-phy-reset-pin {
> > > +                     rockchip,pins = <1 RK_PC2 RK_FUNC_GPIO &pcfg_pull_down>;
> > > +             };
> > > +     };
> > > +
> > > +     leds {
> > > +             led_pin: led-pin {
> > > +                     rockchip,pins = <3 RK_PA5 RK_FUNC_GPIO &pcfg_pull_none>;
> > > +             };
> > > +     };
> > > +
> > > +     pmic {
> > > +             pmic_int_l: pmic-int-l {
> > > +                     rockchip,pins = <2 RK_PA6 RK_FUNC_GPIO &pcfg_pull_up>;
> > > +             };
> > > +     };
> > > +
> >
> > > +     usb3 {
> >
> > usb
> >
> > Last numbers in nodenames are more related to the sort order then to
> > capabillity.
> > ie: mmc0, mmc1
> > All usb pin related things here.
> 
> I'd say it is more related to functionality in this case, as in "this group
> is for USB3 related pins". Makes more sense if the board supported both USB2
> and USB3.

I'd agree :-) ... especially as usb controllers on Rockchip boards are not
really numbered and I think we already have precedent for
usb2 -> usb version 2 pins in some other boards ;-)

> > > +     cap-sd-highspeed;
> > > +     disable-wp;
> > > +     pinctrl-names = "default";
> > > +     pinctrl-0 = <&sdmmc0_clk>, <&sdmmc0_cmd>, <&sdmmc0_dectn>, <&sdmmc0_bus4>;
> > > +     vmmc-supply = <&vcc_sd>;
> > > +     status = "okay";
> > > +};
> > > +
> >
> > > +&saradc {
> > > +     vref-supply = <&vcc_18>;
> > > +     status = "okay";
> > > +};
> >
> > What happened to the recovery key from the schematic?
> 
> I believe I originally planned on adding it, but failed to find a proper
> key event for it. Any suggestions?

Most boards seem to use the KEY_VENDOR keycode.

Heiko

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel