Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add configuration for PMI8950 peripheral

[Marijn Suijten]

On 2022-12-09 17:54:50, Luca Weiss wrote:
> On Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2022 12:20:55 CET Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > On 2022-12-08 11:23:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 08/12/2022 11:12, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > > > On 2022-12-04 17:19:05, Luca Weiss wrote:
> > > >> On Freitag, 2. Dezember 2022 10:36:58 CET Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > > >> [..]
> > > >> 
> > > >> So the way this patch does it is good or does it need changes?
> > > > 
> > > > Except the typo(s?) pointed out in my first reply, this is good to go.
> > > > 
> > > > If we stick with generic adc-chan node names that should be documented
> > > > in the bindings IMO, as it is currently only captured implicitly in the
> > > > examples.  Krzysztof, what is your thought on this?
> > > 
> > > If I understand correctly, the outcome of other discussion [1] was to
> > > use labels and generic node names.
> > 
> > The outcome was to use labels in the driver and disregard node names as
> > the new fwnode API clobbers those names by including the @xx register
> > bit.
> > 
> > (I'll follow up with Jonathan whether or not to remove the current
> > fallback to node names, as [1] ended up discussing many different issues
> > and nits)
> > 
> > > In such case the patch was correct
> > > (except other comments).
> > 
> > As a consequence it _doesn't matter_ how nodes are named, and we _can_
> > use generic node names.  My question for you is whether we should, and
> > if we should lock that in via dt-bindings to guide everyone towards
> > using labels (which i did _not_ do in the recently-landed PM8950 and
> > PM6125, but will send followup for).
> 
> FYI the patch has been merged already and is now in linux-next
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pmi8950.dtsi?id=0d97fdf380b478c358c94f50f1b942e87f407b9b
> 
> If you have any changes that need to be done please send a follow-up patch.

Unfortunately saw that today as well, well after sending this reply.  I
would've loved to correct the pmi8950_gpio label _gpios before someone
starts relying on it in followup patches.

Fixing the v -> mv typo isn't hard though, I'll send a followup patch
regardless.

- Marijn