Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190722123422.4571-1-vkoul@kernel.org> <20190722123422.4571-6-vkoul@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190722123422.4571-6-vkoul@kernel.org>
From:   Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@verdurent.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jul 2019 10:38:09 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHLCerPC0thO9gsaDAxc+XaexinrzG6JGJ8BhB4bFFuQ-P9Jxg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845-cheza: remove macro from
 unit name
To:     Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:06 PM Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Unit name is supposed to be a number, using a macro with hex value is

/s/name/address?

> not recommended, so add the value in unit name.
>
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-cheza.dtsi:966.16-969.4: Warning (unit_address_format): /soc@0/spmi@c440000/pmic@0/adc@3100/adc-chan@0x4d: unit name should not have leading "0x"
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-cheza.dtsi:971.16-974.4: Warning (unit_address_format): /soc@0/spmi@c440000/pmic@0/adc@3100/adc-chan@0x4e: unit name should not have leading "0x"
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-cheza.dtsi:976.16-979.4: Warning (unit_address_format): /soc@0/spmi@c440000/pmic@0/adc@3100/adc-chan@0x4f: unit name should not have leading "0x"
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-cheza.dtsi:981.16-984.4: Warning (unit_address_format): /soc@0/spmi@c440000/pmic@0/adc@3100/adc-chan@0x50: unit name should not have leading "0x"
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-cheza.dtsi:986.16-989.4: Warning (unit_address_format): /soc@0/spmi@c440000/pmic@0/adc@3100/adc-chan@0x51: unit name should not have leading "0x"
>
> Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-cheza.dtsi | 10 +++++-----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-cheza.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-cheza.dtsi
> index 1ebbd568dfd7..9b27b8346ba1 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-cheza.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-cheza.dtsi
> @@ -963,27 +963,27 @@ ap_ts_i2c: &i2c14 {
>  };
>
>  &pm8998_adc {
> -       adc-chan@ADC5_AMUX_THM1_100K_PU {
> +       adc-chan@4d {
>                 reg = <ADC5_AMUX_THM1_100K_PU>;

I'm a little conflicted about this change. If we're replacing the
address with actual values, perhaps we should do that same for the reg
property to keep them in sync? Admittedly though, it is a bit easier
to read the macro name and figure out its meaning.

>                 label = "sdm_temp";
>         };
>
> -       adc-chan@ADC5_AMUX_THM2_100K_PU {
> +       adc-chan@4e {
>                 reg = <ADC5_AMUX_THM2_100K_PU>;
>                 label = "quiet_temp";
>         };
>
> -       adc-chan@ADC5_AMUX_THM3_100K_PU {
> +       adc-chan@4f {
>                 reg = <ADC5_AMUX_THM3_100K_PU>;
>                 label = "lte_temp_1";
>         };
>
> -       adc-chan@ADC5_AMUX_THM4_100K_PU {
> +       adc-chan@50 {
>                 reg = <ADC5_AMUX_THM4_100K_PU>;
>                 label = "lte_temp_2";
>         };
>
> -       adc-chan@ADC5_AMUX_THM5_100K_PU {
> +       adc-chan@51 {
>                 reg = <ADC5_AMUX_THM5_100K_PU>;
>                 label = "charger_temp";
>         };
> --
> 2.20.1
>