Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:1;
Date:   Fri, 1 Dec 2023 10:35:29 +0100
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
        Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>,
        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, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] dt-bindings: thermal: qcom-spmi-adc-tm5/hc: clean up
 examples
Message-ID: <ZWmo4byuaU6VAYmn@hovoldconsulting.com>
References: <20231130174114.13122-1-johan+linaro@kernel.org>
 <20231130174114.13122-3-johan+linaro@kernel.org>
 <5fca9859-35bd-4138-a461-203bee36c8e1@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5fca9859-35bd-4138-a461-203bee36c8e1@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 09:28:48AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 30/11/2023 18:41, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > Clean up the examples by adding newline separators, moving 'reg'
> > properties after 'compatible' and dropping unused labels.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  .../bindings/thermal/qcom-spmi-adc-tm-hc.yaml          |  5 +++--
> >  .../devicetree/bindings/thermal/qcom-spmi-adc-tm5.yaml | 10 ++++++----
> >  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> This and previous patch are both trivial cleanups, so probably should be
> squashed together. Anyway:

I didn't want to mix too many things in one patch, and as I just
mentioned in another reply, I consider the "spmi" parent node name to be
more than just a naming cleanup as calling the node "spmi" indicates
that these "devices" are SPMI devices themselves, rather than part of an
SPMI PMIC.

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

Thanks again.

Johan