Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:8;
Date:   Fri, 1 Dec 2023 10:31:22 +0100
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: rtc: qcom-pm8xxx: fix inconsistent example
Message-ID: <ZWmn6uicNIqqSwoE@hovoldconsulting.com>
References: <20231130173223.12794-1-johan+linaro@kernel.org>
 <ad96b95a-5f4f-4333-b767-762936932061@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ad96b95a-5f4f-4333-b767-762936932061@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk

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