Re: [PATCH 04/11] arm64: dts: qcom: pm7250b: make SID configurable

Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-08-31T12:27:46Z

On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 14:54, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 31/08/2023 13:33, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 13:13, Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@fairphone.com> 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@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 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@linaro.org/
> >>
> >> 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