Re: [PATCH v6 03/11] dt-bindings: mfd: add documentation for S2MU005 PMIC

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 18/05/2026 11:45, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 09:15:11AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 17/05/2026 22:52, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 17, 2026 at 06:39:37PM +0530, Kaustabh Chakraborty wrote:
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +    properties:
>>>>>>>> +      compatible:
>>>>>>>> +        const: samsung,s2mu005-rgb
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +    required:
>>>>>>>> +      - compatible
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +    unevaluatedProperties: false
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +  reg:
>>>>>>>> +    maxItems: 1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Move this above the child nodes please.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But properties are sorted in lex order?
>>>>>
>>>>> Typically the binding is sorted in the same order as properties go in
>>>>> nodes. Common stuff like reg/clocks/interrupts therefore send up above
>>>>> child nodes.
>>>>
>>>> So, do I change this? For one, I don't see the same being followed in
>>>> other schemas of samsung in the same dir (not that I'm trying to pose it
>>>> as an argument against your suggestion), and this was reviewed by
>>>> Krzysztof and is adderssed in v7.
>>>
>>> If Krzysztof doesn't care, then I won't ask you to change it.
>>
>> This builds on top of bindings for previous Samsung PMIC devices, so
>> that's why it keeps the compatibles for children, I guess. No one
>> complained about this at v1-v2 reviews, so when I joined reviewing in v3
>> I did not, either.
>>
>> I don't think the compatible should be here, but I also don't want to
>> stall that patchset. I understand that it is inconsistent review from my
>> side, because other similar patchsets receive comment to drop the
>> compatible. But I don't think we will be fair asking to drop the
>> compatible now, when we did not ask for that in the early versions at all.
> 
> 
> I think you misunderstood, we were talking about the ordering of the
> properties in the binding file being alphanumerical, rather than the
> more typical approach of approximately following the order of
> dts-coding-style.


Ah, then I misunderstood and, even though it is a nit, I do care because
old code is then used for new patches. Bindings follow DTS rules, thus
should be:
1. compatible
2. reg
3. core properties
4. vendor properties

Kaustabh, can you change it please?

Best regards,
Krzysztof