Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 8 Dec 2022 12:20:55 +0100
From:   Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc:     Luca Weiss <luca@z3ntu.xyz>, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        ~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht, phone-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <kholk11@gmail.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add configuration for PMI8950
 peripheral
Message-ID: <20221208112055.m7sqg3ysxzskqjp4@SoMainline.org>
References: <20221101161801.1058969-1-luca@z3ntu.xyz>
 <20221106193722.j64xrhitdencrjxy@SoMainline.org>
 <20221202093658.vg6t2ptar2arh7hn@SoMainline.org>
 <2656622.mvXUDI8C0e@g550jk>
 <20221208101232.536i3cmjf4uk2z52@SoMainline.org>
 <36eb03e8-aace-f7ce-edc8-53715021c0ea@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <36eb03e8-aace-f7ce-edc8-53715021c0ea@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk

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).

> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20221112162719.0ac87998@jic23-huawei/

- Marijn