On 25/03/2026 12:20, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> FWIW TLMM subnodes are best sorted by pin index (although the file
>>> currently doesn't really do that) as per dts coding style
>>
>> I assume when I group the -pins into -state it doesn't apply anymore? As I
>> don't feel having pins relevant to one device / subsystem all over the place
>> is extra clean.
>
nfc_int_default: nfc-int-default-state {
pins = "gpio63";
};
nfc_enable_default: nfc-enable-default-state {
pins = "gpio12", "gpio62";
};
sde_dsi_active: sde-dsi-active-state {
pins = "gpio6", "gpio11";
}
Let's imagine future possible implementation of DTS coding style
linter/checkpatch. How it would sort the nodes? Either by node name or
the first value in "pins", this this would be:
sde_dsi_active: sde-dsi-active-state {
pins = "gpio6", "gpio11";
}
nfc_enable_default: nfc-enable-default-state {
pins = "gpio12", "gpio62";
};
nfc_int_default: nfc-int-default-state {
pins = "gpio63";
};
So that's how you code. Less work for future linter/checkpatch.
The trouble is that "pins" property sorting can result in nodes being
spread all over, imagine:
nfc_enable_default: nfc-enable-default-state {
pins = "gpio5", "gpio62";
// ^^^^^ DIFFERENCE!
};
sde_dsi_active: sde-dsi-active-state {
pins = "gpio6", "gpio11";
}
nfc_int_default: nfc-int-default-state {
pins = "gpio63";
};
That's why I would propose to keep everything sorted by node name, but I
am fine with both choices. Qualcomm maintainers decide about such
detailed style they want to impose.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
