Re: [PATCH 5/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845-cheza: remove macro from unit name

[Vinod Koul]

On 23-07-19, 10:38, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:06 PM Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Unit name is supposed to be a number, using a macro with hex value is
> 
> /s/name/address?

Right, will fix.

> > 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  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.

Well this was how Bjorn suggested, am okay if we do in any
other way. This fixes warning but keeps it bit readable too

Other way would be to make defines decimal values instead of hex

Any better suggestions :)

-- 
~Vinod