Re: [PATCH] docs: dt-bindings: add DTS Coding Style document

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 16/11/2023 21:44, Rob Herring wrote:
>>
>> Merging idea: Rob/DT bindings
>> ---
>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/index.rst   |   1 +
>>  .../devicetree/bindings/writing-dts.rst       | 137 ++++++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 138 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-dts.rst
> 
> Perhaps dts-coding-style.rst

Ack

> 
> After adding writing-schema, I realized the difference between
> writing-schema and writing-bindings isn't all that clear. I never got
> around to renaming things.
> 
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/index.rst b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/index.rst
>> index d9002a3a0abb..975449be4862 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/index.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/index.rst
>> @@ -5,5 +5,6 @@
>>
>>     ABI
>>     writing-bindings
>> +   writing-dts
>>     writing-schema
>>     submitting-patches
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-dts.rst b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-dts.rst
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..10c477ec1eed
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-dts.rst
>> @@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
>> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +.. _writingdts:
>> +
>> +===================================================
>> +Writing Devicetree Sources (DTS) - DTS Coding Style
>> +===================================================
>> +
>> +When writing Devicetree Sources (DTS) please observe below guidelines.  They
>> +should be considered complementary to any rules expressed already in Devicetree
>> +Specification and dtc compiler (including W=1 and W=2 builds).
>> +
>> +Individual architectures and sub-architectures can add additional rules, making
>> +the style stricter.
>> +
>> +Naming and Valid Characters
>> +---------------------------
>> +
>> +1. Node and property names are allowed to use only:
>> +
>> +   * lowercase characters:: [a-z]
>> +   * digits:: [0-9]
>> +   * dash:: -
>> +
>> +2. Labels are allowed to use only:
>> +
>> +   * lowercase characters:: [a-z]
>> +   * digits:: [0-9]
>> +   * underscore:: _
>> +
>> +3. Unit addresses should use lowercase hex, without leading zeros (padding).
> 
> Strictly speaking, the unit-address is whatever a bus defines, but
> yes, by default, that is the format.
> 
>> +
>> +4. Hex values in properties, e.g. "reg", should use lowercase hex.  Any address
>> +   part can be padded with leading zeros.
>> +
>> +Example::
>> +
>> +       gpi_dma2: dma-controller@800000 {
>> +               compatible = "qcom,sm8550-gpi-dma", "qcom,sm6350-gpi-dma";
>> +               reg = <0x0 0x00800000 0x0 0x60000>;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +Order of Nodes
>> +--------------
>> +
>> +1. Nodes within any bus, thus using unit addresses for children, shall be
>> +   ordered incrementally by unit address.
>> +
>> +2. Nodes without unit addresses should be ordered alpha-numerically.
>> +
>> +3. When extending nodes in board DTS via &label, the entries should be ordered
>> +   alpha-numerically.
> 
> Or matching the original node definition order?

If there is any sub-arch using such style, then sure, why not. Otherwise
if we do not have such examples, I find that a bit tricky to implement:
for patches adding new board, one needs to check the original DTSI for
order.

> 
>> +
>> +Example::
>> +
>> +       // SoC DTSI
>> +
>> +       \ {
> 
> / {
> 
>> +               cpus {
>> +                       // ...
>> +               };
>> +
>> +               psci {
>> +                       // ...
>> +               };
>> +
>> +               soc@ {
>> +                       dma: dma-controller@10000 {
>> +                               // ...
>> +                       };
>> +
>> +                       clk: clock-controller@80000 {
>> +                               // ...
>> +                       };
>> +               };
>> +       };
>> +
>> +       // Board DTS
>> +
>> +       &clk {
>> +               // ...
>> +       };
>> +
>> +       &dma {
>> +               // ...
>> +       };
>> +
>> +
>> +Order of Properties in Device Node
>> +----------------------------------
>> +
>> +Following order of properties in device nodes is preferred:
>> +
>> +1. compatible
>> +2. reg
>> +3. ranges
> 
>> +4. All properties with values
>> +5. Boolean properties
> 
> I make this like schemas, standard/common properties first, then
> vendor specific properties.

Sure.

> 
>> +6. status (if applicable)
>> +7. Child nodes
>> +
>> +The "status" property is by default "okay", thus it can be omitted.
>> +
>> +Example::
>> +
>> +       // SoC DTSI
>> +
>> +       usb_1_hsphy: phy@88e3000 {
>> +               compatible = "qcom,sm8550-snps-eusb2-phy";
>> +               reg = <0x0 0x088e3000 0x0 0x154>;
>> +               #phy-cells = <0>;
>> +               resets = <&gcc GCC_QUSB2PHY_PRIM_BCR>;
>> +               status = "disabled";
>> +       };
>> +
>> +       // Board DTS
>> +
>> +       &usb_1_hsphy {
>> +               clocks = <&tcsr TCSR_USB2_CLKREF_EN>;
>> +               clock-names = "ref";
>> +               status = "okay";
>> +       };
>> +
>> +
>> +Indentation
>> +-----------
>> +
>> +1. Use indentation according to :ref:`codingstyle`.
>> +2. For arrays spanning across lines, preferred is to align the continued
>> +   entries with opening < from first line.
>> +
>> +Example::
>> +
>> +       thermal-sensor@c271000 {
>> +               compatible = "qcom,sm8550-tsens", "qcom,tsens-v2";
>> +               reg = <0x0 0x0c271000 0x0 0x1000>,
>> +                     <0x0 0x0c222000 0x0 0x1000>;
> 
> You should cover the <> style too, meaning <> around each logical entry.

Ack.



Best regards,
Krzysztof