Hello Krzysztof
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2025 3:41 PM
> To: Faraz Ata <faraz.ata@xxxxxxxxxxx>; alim.akhtar@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> robh@xxxxxxxxxx; krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> rosa.pila@xxxxxxxxxxx; dev.tailor@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> suyash.bitti@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: exynos: Add DT node for all UART ports
>
> On 11/04/2025 09:07, Faraz Ata wrote:
> > Hello Krzysztof
> >
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: exynos: Add DT node for all UART
> >> ports
> >>
> >> On 18/03/2025 08:56, Faraz Ata wrote:
> >>> +
> >>> + usi_17: usi@10d800c0 {
> >>
> >> Messed order. Keep nodes sorted by unit address (see DTS coding style).
> >>
> >>
> > Thanks for your review
> > Based on the DTS coding style, it is acceptable to group nodes of the
> > same type together, even if it breaks the unit address ordering.
>
> That's accepted alternative because some subsystems do that way. I don't
> think we ever applied such rule to Samsung? Do you have any prior
> reference about this? I accepted mess in the past, but that does not mean
> that mess is the rule.
>
> > https://docs.kernel.org/6.12/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.html
> > Please let me know your opinion on this.
> > Do you mean I should move all the USI_ node after pwm node?
>
> Please it according to sorting by unit address.
>
USI is spread across two blocks BLK_PERIC0 and BLK_PERIC1,
USI00 to USI08 fall under BLK_PERIC0
USI09 to USI17 fall under BLK_PERIC1.
Will send another version with USI nodes sorted by unit address with respect to BLK_PERIC0 and BLK_PERIC1.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
