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. Could we get this in now, and if we find a new & better way in the future we can adjust all the dtsi upstream?
