@@ -67,20 +67,6 @@ reg_usdhc2_vmmc: regulator-usdhc2 {
};
};
-&flexcan1 {
- pinctrl-names = "default";
- pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_flexcan1>;
- xceiver-supply = <®_can1_stby>;
- status = "okay";
-};
-
-&flexcan2 {
- pinctrl-names = "default";
- pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_flexcan2>;
- xceiver-supply = <®_can2_stby>;
- status = "disabled";/* can2 pin conflict with pdm */
-};
-
&eqos {
pinctrl-names = "default";
pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_eqos>;
@@ -197,6 +183,20 @@ ethphy1: ethernet-phy@1 {
};
};
+&flexcan1 {
+ pinctrl-names = "default";
+ pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_flexcan1>;
+ xceiver-supply = <®_can1_stby>;
+ status = "okay";
+};
+
+&flexcan2 {
+ pinctrl-names = "default";
+ pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_flexcan2>;
+ xceiver-supply = <®_can2_stby>;
+ status = "disabled";/* can2 pin conflict with pdm */
+};
+
&i2c1 {
clock-frequency = <400000>;
pinctrl-names = "default";
The nodes after the root nodes are supposed to be ordered alphabetically. There is however an expection for &pinctrl that some consider to be good placed at the end of the file. So only move flexcan1 and flexcan2 to their proper place. Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> --- (implicit) v1 was send a year ago and also moved pinctrl. Just stumbled over this mail and the concerns back then that pinctrl is good at the end. I don't fully agree, but here comes at least the non-disputed part of the patch. Reference: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210707105309.1693138-1-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de Best regards Uwe arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mp-evk.dts | 28 ++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) base-commit: b13baccc3850ca8b8cccbf8ed9912dbaa0fdf7f3