Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add configuration for PMI8950 peripheral

[Marijn Suijten]

On 2022-12-10 11:58:24, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 09/12/2022 21:38, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > On 2022-12-09 17:54:50, Luca Weiss wrote:
> >> On Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2022 12:20:55 CET Marijn Suijten wrote:
> >>> 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).
> >>
> >> FYI the patch has been merged already and is now in linux-next
> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pmi8950.dtsi?id=0d97fdf380b478c358c94f50f1b942e87f407b9b
> >>
> >> If you have any changes that need to be done please send a follow-up patch.
> > 
> > Unfortunately saw that today as well, well after sending this reply.  I
> > would've loved to correct the pmi8950_gpio label _gpios before someone
> 
> I don't understand what is there to correct. The "pmi8950_gpio" is a
> correct label. There is no single rule saying label should have "s" at
> the end. The only rules are: using underscores and having similar naming
> (e.g. mdss_ for all display labels).

If we were able to have rules for labels, would I then be allowed to
"correct" this?  The inconsistency between DTs is /super/ annoying (and
it looks wrong to have a singular _gpio named thing contain /multiple
gpios/), but just because we can't express this in dt-bindings (or so I
think) we shouldn't change it?

- Marijn