Re: [PATCH 04/11] arm64: dts: qcom: pm7250b: make SID configurable

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 11/09/2023 11:59, Luca Weiss wrote:
> On Mon Sep 11, 2023 at 11:44 AM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 11/09/2023 10:34, Luca Weiss wrote:
>>> On Tue Sep 5, 2023 at 10:30 AM CEST, Luca Weiss wrote:
>>>> On Thu Aug 31, 2023 at 2:27 PM CEST, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 14:54, Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 31/08/2023 13:33, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 13:13, Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed Aug 30, 2023 at 12:06 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 30/08/2023 11:58, Luca Weiss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Like other Qualcomm PMICs the PM7250B can be used on different addresses
>>>>>>>>>> on the SPMI bus. Use similar defines like the PMK8350 to make this
>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm7250b.dtsi | 23 ++++++++++++++++-------
>>>>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm7250b.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm7250b.dtsi
>>>>>>>>>> index e8540c36bd99..3514de536baa 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm7250b.dtsi
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm7250b.dtsi
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -7,6 +7,15 @@
>>>>>>>>>>  #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h>
>>>>>>>>>>  #include <dt-bindings/spmi/spmi.h>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +/* This PMIC can be configured to be at different SIDs */
>>>>>>>>>> +#ifndef PM7250B_SID
>>>>>>>>>> +   #define PM7250B_SID 2
>>>>>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do you send the same patch as v1, without any reference to previous
>>>>>>>>> discussions?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You got here feedback already.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/f52524da-719b-790f-ad2c-0c3f313d9fe9@xxxxxxxxxx/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did mention that original patch in the cover letter of this series.
>>>>>>>> I'm definitely aware of the discussion earlier this year there but also
>>>>>>>> tried to get an update lately if there's any update with no response.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the overall consensus was that my proposal is too complicated
>>>>>>> for the DT files.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I proposed to duplicate the entries. Do you keep QUP nodes in DTSI and
>>>>>> customize per address? No.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the same time, we do keep SoC files separate from the board files.
>>>>> Yes, I'm slightly exaggerating here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that for PMIC files it makes sense to extract common parts if
>>>>> that eases reuse of the common parts.
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> what can I do for v2 now?
>>>>
>>>> 1. Keep this patch as-is, and keep pm7250b in device dts.
>>
>> This was NAKed by me. What Qualcomm SoC maintainers decide (or not
>> decide) about other options, should not cause the wrong solution to be
>> re-posted...
>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. Drop pm7250b patch and drop from device dts, until _someone_ figures
>>>> out a solution talking to the PMIC on different SID.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Something else like copy-pasting pm7250b.dtsi to pm7250-8.dtsi and
>>>> changing the SID there, and using that in device dts.
> 
> @Konrad, @Bjorn: Can you give any feedback here what's preferable?
> Otherwise I'm just blocked on this series.
> 
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know what to do.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Luca
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> if there's no feedback I'll keep this patch in v2 of this series and we
>>> can continue to discuss there (if necessary).
>>
>> Sorry, I still do not agree and there were no arguments convincing me to
>> change the mind.
>>
>> I gave you the solution from my perspective. Why do you decided to
>> ignore it and send it as is?
> 
> I get it that you are not final decider for qcom dts changes but it's
> quite difficult for someone sending patches to not get any feedback what
> other change to replace this is appropriate. I doubt it's a good idea to
> just implement some random pm7250-8.dtsi or whatever to potentially
> immediately get a response that that way is also bad.
> 
> That's why I'm trying to get some info before working on something and
> sending it. Hopefully Bjorn or Konrad can add their thoughts above.

I understand, and it is frustrating. If such case happens the solution
in upstream is not sending the same NAKed version but send something else.

> 
> Also I don't recall me ever reading a "solution" from your side but
> maybe I need to dig through the old emails again.

Here:
"I proposed to duplicate the entries. Do you keep QUP nodes in DTSI and
customize per address? No."

Dmitry responded that having PMICs extracted help re-using. He is right.
But here you hit the limit of such re-usage.

Best regards,
Krzysztof