Hi Krzysztof, On Wed May 10, 2023 at 1:27 PM CEST, Luca Weiss wrote: > On Wed May 10, 2023 at 12:05 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 10/05/2023 10:34, Luca Weiss wrote: > > > On Wed May 10, 2023 at 10:07 AM CEST, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > >> On Wed, 10 May 2023 at 09:55, Krzysztof Kozlowski > > >> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> On 10/05/2023 08:47, Luca Weiss wrote: > > >>>> Hi Krzysztof, > > >>>> > > >>>> On Fri Apr 7, 2023 at 10:27 AM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > >>>>> On 07/04/2023 09:45, Luca Weiss wrote: > > >>>>>> Like other Qualcomm PMICs the PM7250B can be used on different addresses > > >>>>>> on the SPMI bus. Use similar defines like the PMK8350 to make this > > >>>>>> possible. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>>>> --- > > >>>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm7250b.dtsi | 23 ++++++++++++++++------- > > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm7250b.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm7250b.dtsi > > >>>>>> index daa6f1d30efa..eeb476edc79a 100644 > > >>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm7250b.dtsi > > >>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm7250b.dtsi > > >>>>>> @@ -7,6 +7,15 @@ > > >>>>>> #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h> > > >>>>>> #include <dt-bindings/spmi/spmi.h> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> +/* This PMIC can be configured to be at different SIDs */ > > >>>>>> +#ifndef PM7250B_SID > > >>>>>> + #define PM7250B_SID 2 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Drop indentation, although anyway I am against this. Please don't bring > > >>>>> new patterns of this at least till we settle previous discussion. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/46658cbb-fff5-e98b-fdad-88fa683a9c75@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > >>>> > > >>>> What's the outcome of the discussion? For this PMIC it's totally enough > > >>>> to have the SID configurable like in this patch, I don't think this PMIC > > >>>> will be included twice in a board - at least I'm not aware of such a > > >>>> configuration. > > >>> > > >>> We did not reach consensus and I still disagree with complex macros or > > >>> macros depending on order of inclusion. > > >> > > >> I still think we should find a way to parametrise PMIC dtsi, however I > > >> agree with Krzysztof that complex CPP is not a way to go. > > > > > > What about the macro already used in-tree and proposed with this patch? > > > I wouldn't say this is a "complex macro" since it's just a single number > > > being replaced in a few places. > > > > Are you talking about the macro to which I responded: "or macros > > depending on order of inclusion." or something else? > > I thought you mean with .. > > > >>> We did not reach consensus and I still disagree with complex macros or > > >>> macros depending on order of inclusion. > > .. the macros proprosed in the patch you linked (that version that also > adjusts the labels based on the SID). > > I was asking if the patch I sent (with #define PM7250B_SID) would be > okay to take in at least until the bigger discussion has come to a > conclusion, since we already have upstream occurances of such a macro so > it's not a new concept. > > Otherwise I'll just carry this patch in my local tree until this > situation has cleared up. Has any decision been made in the meantime whether we can get this patch in (at least until we have a better solution)? Imo since this patch isn't introducing any new concept that isn't already present upstream so shouldn't be a big problem.. Regards Luca > > Regards > Luca > > > > > Best regards, > > Krzysztof
