On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 09:32:46AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 30/11/2023 18:32, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > The PM8921 is an SSBI PMIC but in the binding example it is described
> > as being part of an SPMI PMIC while using an SSBI address.
> >
> > Make the example consistent by using the sibling PM8941 SPMI PMIC
> > instead.
> >
> > Fixes: 8138c5f0318c ("dt-bindings: rtc: qcom-pm8xxx-rtc: Add qcom pm8xxx rtc bindings")
>
> Similarly to your thermal patch - this is just an example, not a
> binding. No bugs are fixed here, no need for backports.
A Fixes tag does not in itself imply that something should be
backported, we have CC-stable tags for that.
And if this was just about the name, I'd agree with you that a Fixes tag
is not warranted either, but the way I see this this is more than that
as the "spmi" name suggests that these "devices" sit directly on the
SPMI bus which would require a different binding entirely.
The naming therefore becomes misleading and should be fixed to assist
any casual consumer of these binding documents.
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for reviewing these.
Johan
