On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 14:54, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 31/08/2023 13:33, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 13:13, Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed Aug 30, 2023 at 12:06 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>> On 30/08/2023 11:58, 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 e8540c36bd99..3514de536baa 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 > >>>> +#endif > >>> > >>> Why do you send the same patch as v1, without any reference to previous > >>> discussions? > >>> > >>> You got here feedback already. > >>> > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/f52524da-719b-790f-ad2c-0c3f313d9fe9@xxxxxxxxxx/ > >> > >> Hi Krzysztof, > >> > >> I did mention that original patch in the cover letter of this series. > >> I'm definitely aware of the discussion earlier this year there but also > >> tried to get an update lately if there's any update with no response. > > > > I think the overall consensus was that my proposal is too complicated > > for the DT files. > > I proposed to duplicate the entries. Do you keep QUP nodes in DTSI and > customize per address? No. At the same time, we do keep SoC files separate from the board files. Yes, I'm slightly exaggerating here. I think that for PMIC files it makes sense to extract common parts if that eases reuse of the common parts. > > I definitely do not agree to these ifndef->define. Maybe using just > define would work (so drop ifndef->define), because this makes it > obvious and fail-safe if included in wrong place... except that it is > still not the define we expect. This is not the coding style present in > other DTSes. > > The true problem how these SPMI bindings were created. Requiring SID > address in every child is clearly redundant and I think we do not follow > such approach anywhere else. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > -- With best wishes Dmitry
