[lkml]   [2022]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add configuration for PMI8950 peripheral
On 09/12/2022 21:38, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> On 2022-12-09 17:54:50, Luca Weiss wrote:
>> On Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2022 12:20:55 CET Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>> On 2022-12-08 11:23:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 08/12/2022 11:12, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-12-04 17:19:05, Luca Weiss wrote:
>>>>>> On Freitag, 2. Dezember 2022 10:36:58 CET Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>> So the way this patch does it is good or does it need changes?
>>>>> Except the typo(s?) pointed out in my first reply, this is good to go.
>>>>> If we stick with generic adc-chan node names that should be documented
>>>>> in the bindings IMO, as it is currently only captured implicitly in the
>>>>> examples. Krzysztof, what is your thought on this?
>>>> If I understand correctly, the outcome of other discussion [1] was to
>>>> use labels and generic node names.
>>> The outcome was to use labels in the driver and disregard node names as
>>> the new fwnode API clobbers those names by including the @xx register
>>> bit.
>>> (I'll follow up with Jonathan whether or not to remove the current
>>> fallback to node names, as [1] ended up discussing many different issues
>>> and nits)
>>>> In such case the patch was correct
>>>> (except other comments).
>>> As a consequence it _doesn't matter_ how nodes are named, and we _can_
>>> use generic node names. My question for you is whether we should, and
>>> if we should lock that in via dt-bindings to guide everyone towards
>>> using labels (which i did _not_ do in the recently-landed PM8950 and
>>> PM6125, but will send followup for).
>> FYI the patch has been merged already and is now in linux-next
>> If you have any changes that need to be done please send a follow-up patch.
> Unfortunately saw that today as well, well after sending this reply. I
> would've loved to correct the pmi8950_gpio label _gpios before someone

I don't understand what is there to correct. The "pmi8950_gpio" is a
correct label. There is no single rule saying label should have "s" at
the end. The only rules are: using underscores and having similar naming
(e.g. mdss_ for all display labels).

Best regards,

 \ /
  Last update: 2022-12-10 11:59    [W:0.104 / U:1.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site