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? Best regards, Krzysztof
