Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: pm7250b: make SID configurable

["Luca Weiss" <luca.weiss@fairphone.com>]

Hi Krzysztof,

On Wed May 10, 2023 at 1:27 PM CEST, Luca Weiss wrote:
> On Wed May 10, 2023 at 12:05 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > 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@linaro.org> 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@fairphone.com>
> > >>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>>  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@linaro.org/
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 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?
>
> I thought you mean with ..
>
> > >>> We did not reach consensus and I still disagree with complex macros or
> > >>> macros depending on order of inclusion.
>
> .. the macros proprosed in the patch you linked (that version that also
> adjusts the labels based on the SID).
>
> I was asking if the patch I sent (with #define PM7250B_SID) would be
> okay to take in at least until the bigger discussion has come to a
> conclusion, since we already have upstream occurances of such a macro so
> it's not a new concept.
>
> Otherwise I'll just carry this patch in my local tree until this
> situation has cleared up.

Has any decision been made in the meantime whether we can get this patch
in (at least until we have a better solution)?

Imo since this patch isn't introducing any new concept that isn't
already present upstream so shouldn't be a big problem..

Regards
Luca

>
> Regards
> Luca
>
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Krzysztof