On 2022-12-10 11:58:24, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 09/12/2022 21:38, Marijn Suijten wrote: > > 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 > > I don't understand what is there to correct. The "pmi8950_gpio" is a > correct label. There is no single rule saying label should have "s" at > the end. The only rules are: using underscores and having similar naming > (e.g. mdss_ for all display labels). If we were able to have rules for labels, would I then be allowed to "correct" this? The inconsistency between DTs is /super/ annoying (and it looks wrong to have a singular _gpio named thing contain /multiple gpios/), but just because we can't express this in dt-bindings (or so I think) we shouldn't change it? - Marijn
