On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 12:24:10PM +0530, Rohit Agarwal wrote:Yes
On 7/27/2023 11:06 AM, Pavan Kondeti wrote:Thanks for checking, then we should remove the old header in this patch
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 10:21:10AM +0530, Rohit Agarwal wrote:Removing this header directly would also be fine as we are not using any
Update the RPMHPD references with new bindings defined in rpmhpd.hDoes this file still need to include old header? The same is applicable
for Qualcomm SoCs SM8[2345]50.
Signed-off-by: Rohit Agarwal <quic_rohiagar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,dispcc-sm8x50.yaml | 3 ++-
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8350-videocc.yaml | 3 ++-
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-camcc.yaml | 3 ++-
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-dispcc.yaml | 3 ++-
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.yaml | 3 ++-
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8550-dispcc.yaml | 3 ++-
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,videocc.yaml | 3 ++-
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/qcom,sm8250-dpu.yaml | 3 ++-
.../devicetree/bindings/display/msm/qcom,sm8250-mdss.yaml | 7 ++++---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/qcom,sm8350-dpu.yaml | 3 ++-
.../devicetree/bindings/display/msm/qcom,sm8350-mdss.yaml | 5 +++--
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/qcom,sm8450-dpu.yaml | 3 ++-
.../devicetree/bindings/display/msm/qcom,sm8450-mdss.yaml | 7 ++++---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/qcom,sm8550-dpu.yaml | 3 ++-
.../devicetree/bindings/display/msm/qcom,sm8550-mdss.yaml | 7 ++++---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,sm8250-venus.yaml | 3 ++-
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-msm.yaml | 3 ++-
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,sm8350-pas.yaml | 5 +++--
18 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,dispcc-sm8x50.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,dispcc-sm8x50.yaml
index d6774db..d6b81c0 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,dispcc-sm8x50.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,dispcc-sm8x50.yaml
@@ -83,6 +83,7 @@ examples:
- |
#include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,rpmh.h>
#include <dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h>
+ #include <dt-bindings/power/qcom,rpmhpd.h>
clock-controller@af00000 {
compatible = "qcom,sm8250-dispcc";
reg = <0x0af00000 0x10000>;
@@ -103,7 +104,7 @@ examples:
#clock-cells = <1>;
#reset-cells = <1>;
#power-domain-cells = <1>;
- power-domains = <&rpmhpd SM8250_MMCX>;
+ power-domains = <&rpmhpd RPMHPD_MMCX>;
required-opps = <&rpmhpd_opp_low_svs>;
};
...
to some of the other files in the patch also.
We also discussed on the other thread [1] to move the regulator level
definitions to new header. should this change be done after that, so that
we don't end up touching the very same files again?
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/a4zztrn6jhblozdswba7psqtvjt5l765mfr3yl4llsm5gsyqef@7x6q7yabydvm/
macro defined directly in these
bindings.
I already checked with dt_binding_check by removing this header.
it self, right?
Thanks,
Pavan