[PATCH] dt-bindings: rtc: qcom-pm8xxx: fix inconsistent example

[PATCH] dt-bindings: rtc: qcom-pm8xxx: fix inconsistent example

[Johan Hovold]

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")
Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
---
 .../bindings/rtc/qcom-pm8xxx-rtc.yaml         | 36 +++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/qcom-pm8xxx-rtc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/qcom-pm8xxx-rtc.yaml
index 774c34c3f8f6..cdc56dfbfac3 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/qcom-pm8xxx-rtc.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/qcom-pm8xxx-rtc.yaml
@@ -67,27 +67,27 @@ additionalProperties: false
 
 examples:
   - |
+    #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h>
     #include <dt-bindings/spmi/spmi.h>
-    spmi_bus: spmi@c440000 {
-      reg = <0x0c440000 0x1100>;
-      #address-cells = <2>;
-      #size-cells = <0>;
-      pmicintc: pmic@0 {
-        reg = <0x0 SPMI_USID>;
-        compatible = "qcom,pm8921";
-        interrupts = <104 8>;
-        #interrupt-cells = <2>;
-        interrupt-controller;
-        #address-cells = <1>;
+
+    spmi {
+        #address-cells = <2>;
         #size-cells = <0>;
 
-        pm8921_rtc: rtc@11d {
-          compatible = "qcom,pm8921-rtc";
-          reg = <0x11d>;
-          interrupts = <0x27 0>;
-          nvmem-cells = <&rtc_offset>;
-          nvmem-cell-names = "offset";
+        pmic@0 {
+            compatible = "qcom,pm8941", "qcom,spmi-pmic";
+            reg = <0x0 SPMI_USID>;
+            #address-cells = <1>;
+            #size-cells = <0>;
+
+            rtc@6000 {
+                compatible = "qcom,pm8941-rtc";
+                reg = <0x6000>, <0x6100>;
+                reg-names = "rtc", "alarm";
+                interrupts = <0x0 0x61 0x1 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
+                nvmem-cells = <&rtc_offset>;
+                nvmem-cell-names = "offset";
+            };
         };
-      };
     };
 ...
-- 
2.41.0

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: rtc: qcom-pm8xxx: fix inconsistent example

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

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.

> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
> ---
>  .../bindings/rtc/qcom-pm8xxx-rtc.yaml         | 36 +++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> 

Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: rtc: qcom-pm8xxx: fix inconsistent example

[Johan Hovold]

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@linaro.org>

Thanks for reviewing these.

Johan

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: rtc: qcom-pm8xxx: fix inconsistent example

[Conor Dooley]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 956 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 10:31:22AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> 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.

IDK, I think at this point every highly active kernel developer should
be aware that the stable maintainers backport way more than just what
gets explicitly CCed to stable.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: rtc: qcom-pm8xxx: fix inconsistent example

[Johan Hovold]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 679 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 04:27:33PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 10:31:22AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:

> > A Fixes tag does not in itself imply that something should be
> > backported, we have CC-stable tags for that.
> 
> IDK, I think at this point every highly active kernel developer should
> be aware that the stable maintainers backport way more than just what
> gets explicitly CCed to stable.

I'm quite aware of that, and if one of my patches with a Fixes tag is
picked up for backporting when it should not I complain loudly.

For this patch, I would not necessarily complain however as the current
example is misleading.

Johan

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: rtc: qcom-pm8xxx: fix inconsistent example

[Johan Hovold]

Hi Alexandre,

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 06:32:23PM +0100, 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")
> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>

I noticed that this one is not yet in linux-next so sending a reminder.

Johan

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: rtc: qcom-pm8xxx: fix inconsistent example

[Alexandre Belloni]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 18:32:23 +0100, 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.
> 
> 
> [...]

Applied, thanks!

[1/1] dt-bindings: rtc: qcom-pm8xxx: fix inconsistent example
      commit: 33f4ac16540509af518580abe730d409e8098aca

Best regards,

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com