From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.manjaro.org (mail.manjaro.org [116.203.91.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAE515789D; Sat, 18 Jan 2025 09:25:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737192311; cv=none; b=e7S91C47ugrQGhy3dpNLRrLzLmlU6NSQKpr7iw/WYo5nbsnaCJdKIsUwE2pzocXb4q/0qckLZtWKG8asYuZNqbcLwZIHyr7a1ef9pD1Yczzh9+OWqCkhtWGOpvy3WQvNHuPOSbUV71a7XBr6Xw7T8mZmp5/0pVB8bb5E9OszqGQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737192311; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vwymbIYCd1KLQ37rlGh0557bBwmIP+9DkmwskhVTzS8=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=CG28g6u7vXumrD7NIFZ7rQhJmtI3RtHoZgTcWiY5D/z9d3UUtGk1+iiUQhssVX7lkYe7dMq1KQYe62sMzKXzPtgcUeACGa+/FotBkmVXCw96w96sA18S2w8xzrq3o3x1yNY+ML311gd+fkJ66/SePslAX/tjr/Nsq4iZqLTXAZU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b=kiwlxS4g; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b="kiwlxS4g" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=manjaro.org; s=2021; t=1737192301; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=f3gaHJhxYmNnOibwoWf6n+HsBORRNWAm1WBlAvkjJ5c=; b=kiwlxS4gR7ebogOG+lpIeJxKepxcvjj1PHy+JhwHYk8NWBxoPtOQM4yqlbIBObWQAOySJJ 8ISijcucWY1FzlW0ZgF2/U/agqwkB2PIWlQ2Y3TsVgoeLnT47UNaur+W80q+0xclNHhMni ivpjhRTmJeV8bQmMCmzjaEAt9zFY/oPP2QwkKdHXtXdBdKbv44rR2btiH34bdo+orUR4zI 6TFEvtiU5G1OkvCD2HauR/PCyUJiXQyJ36VJGLRa/AMU2YRDq5OTEvzG9X6TUMtYZ/tlCW ypPIdzRUp1COdxMAPmyBtsU96eU21WkwVSv6Vvno27R6AP0YBkOI65dqh7CylA== Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 10:25:00 +0100 From: Dragan Simic To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Diederik de Haas , Peter Geis , Heiko Stuebner , zyw@rock-chips.com, kever.yang@rock-chips.com, frank.wang@rock-chips.com, william.wu@rock-chips.com, wulf@rock-chips.com, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, Alex Bee , Conor Dooley , Johan Jonker , Jonas Karlman , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Rob Herring , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 4/6] arm64: dts: rockchip: add rk3328 usb3 phy node In-Reply-To: References: <20250115012628.1035928-1-pgwipeout@gmail.com> <20250115012628.1035928-5-pgwipeout@gmail.com> <7c7ce820-8a9b-46df-b143-f77835b7e5a0@kernel.org> <1bc91b4214a1099801aaed6b3ef81ef3@manjaro.org> Message-ID: <60ced7df829e7c10e264627cc0947762@manjaro.org> X-Sender: dsimic@manjaro.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Authentication-Results: ORIGINATING; auth=pass smtp.auth=dsimic@manjaro.org smtp.mailfrom=dsimic@manjaro.org Hello Krzysztof, On 2025-01-18 09:46, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 17/01/2025 05:10, Dragan Simic wrote: >> On 2025-01-16 17:53, Diederik de Haas wrote: >>> On Thu Jan 16, 2025 at 2:01 PM CET, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 15/01/2025 02:26, Peter Geis wrote: >>>>> 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 >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> 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_. >> 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 an option for those who prefer having fewer "artificial" line breaks over adhering strictly to the rules. Thus, as a maintainer, you're obviously free to enforce the 80-column limit of you want so. If my opinion counts, I'd agree with the 80-column limit when it comes to the device trees and bindings. Keeping those files at the lower width usually makes them more readable to me. However, enforcing the 80-column limit in C and header files very often leads to having line breaks that do nothing but make the code look a bit silly.