On Wed, 10 May 2023 at 11:34, Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. My 2c: in my opinion it is fine (and it follows parameterization that we already have for some PMICs). > Could we get this in now, and if we find a new & better way in the > future we can adjust all the dtsi upstream? And this depends on the decision of RobH and Krzysztof. -- With best wishes Dmitry
