[5/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845-cheza: remove macro from unit name
diff mbox series

Message ID 20190722123422.4571-6-vkoul@kernel.org
State Superseded
Headers show
Series
  • arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845: Fix DTS warnings
Related show

Commit Message

Vinod Koul July 22, 2019, 12:34 p.m. UTC
Unit name is supposed to be a number, using a macro with hex value is
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@kernel.org>
---
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-cheza.dtsi | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Comments

Amit Kucheria July 23, 2019, 5:08 a.m. UTC | #1
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:06 PM Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Unit name is supposed to be a number, using a macro with hex value is

/s/name/address?

> 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@kernel.org>
> ---
>  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.

>                 label = "sdm_temp";
>         };
>
> -       adc-chan@ADC5_AMUX_THM2_100K_PU {
> +       adc-chan@4e {
>                 reg = <ADC5_AMUX_THM2_100K_PU>;
>                 label = "quiet_temp";
>         };
>
> -       adc-chan@ADC5_AMUX_THM3_100K_PU {
> +       adc-chan@4f {
>                 reg = <ADC5_AMUX_THM3_100K_PU>;
>                 label = "lte_temp_1";
>         };
>
> -       adc-chan@ADC5_AMUX_THM4_100K_PU {
> +       adc-chan@50 {
>                 reg = <ADC5_AMUX_THM4_100K_PU>;
>                 label = "lte_temp_2";
>         };
>
> -       adc-chan@ADC5_AMUX_THM5_100K_PU {
> +       adc-chan@51 {
>                 reg = <ADC5_AMUX_THM5_100K_PU>;
>                 label = "charger_temp";
>         };
> --
> 2.20.1
>
Vinod Koul July 23, 2019, 5:14 a.m. UTC | #2
On 23-07-19, 10:38, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:06 PM Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> 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@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  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 :)
Bjorn Andersson July 23, 2019, 5:41 a.m. UTC | #3
On Mon 22 Jul 22:14 PDT 2019, Vinod Koul wrote:

> On 23-07-19, 10:38, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:06 PM Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> 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@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > >  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>;

When I read this define I instantly know which channel we're referring
to. The 4d above is simply there for syntactical purposes and needs only
to be cared about if the reg is ever changed.

So I like this form.

> > 
> > 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
> 

While the ePAPRR states that the unit address must match the first reg,
dtc enforces that the unit address string matches "%x" of the reg.

Regards,
Bjorn

> Any better suggestions :)
> 
> -- 
> ~Vinod
Stephen Boyd July 23, 2019, 2:51 p.m. UTC | #4
Quoting Vinod Koul (2019-07-22 05:34:22)
> Unit name is supposed to be a number, using a macro with hex value is
> 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@kernel.org>
> ---

Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>

Patch
diff mbox series

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>;
 		label = "sdm_temp";
 	};
 
-	adc-chan@ADC5_AMUX_THM2_100K_PU {
+	adc-chan@4e {
 		reg = <ADC5_AMUX_THM2_100K_PU>;
 		label = "quiet_temp";
 	};
 
-	adc-chan@ADC5_AMUX_THM3_100K_PU {
+	adc-chan@4f {
 		reg = <ADC5_AMUX_THM3_100K_PU>;
 		label = "lte_temp_1";
 	};
 
-	adc-chan@ADC5_AMUX_THM4_100K_PU {
+	adc-chan@50 {
 		reg = <ADC5_AMUX_THM4_100K_PU>;
 		label = "lte_temp_2";
 	};
 
-	adc-chan@ADC5_AMUX_THM5_100K_PU {
+	adc-chan@51 {
 		reg = <ADC5_AMUX_THM5_100K_PU>;
 		label = "charger_temp";
 	};