On 2024-12-03 08:52:59, Luca Weiss wrote:
> On Mon Dec 2, 2024 at 9:00 PM CET, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 04:45:02PM +0100, Luca Weiss wrote:
> > > During an earlier commit, the comment from SM6350 was copied without
> > > modifying. Adjust the comment to reflect the defines.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca.we...@fairphone.com>
> >
> > Fixes tag, please.
> 
> I thought for just a comment fix it's not necessary / desired.

Makes one wonder why the SoC name is repeated in a comment in the first place,
when it is already in every named constant and the containing filename too.
That's only prone to errors as you've demonstrated here, requiring a separate
commit and discussion (and automatic backporting via Fixes:) to patch up, while
it already wasn't relevant/useful for anyone.

Less is more.

- Marijn

PS: That's a suggestion to see if we can perhaps remove these from all header
files instead to save the copy-paste burden in the future?

> 
> Anyways:
> 
> Fixes: 2d48e6ea3080 ("dt-bindings: power: rpmpd: Add SM6375 power domains")
> 
> 
> >
> > > ---
> > >  include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h 
> > > b/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h
> > > index 
> > > df599bf462207267a412eac8e01634189a696a59..d9b7bac309537cbfd2488e7d4fe21d195c919ef5
> > >  100644
> > > --- a/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h
> > > +++ b/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h
> > > @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@
> > >  #define SM6350_MSS       4
> > >  #define SM6350_MX        5
> > >  
> > > -/* SM6350 Power Domain Indexes */
> > > +/* SM6375 Power Domain Indexes */
> > >  #define SM6375_VDDCX             0
> > >  #define SM6375_VDDCX_AO  1
> > >  #define SM6375_VDDCX_VFL 2
> > > 
> > > ---
> > > base-commit: 40384c840ea1944d7c5a392e8975ed088ecf0b37
> > > change-id: 20241202-rpmpd-sm6375-06582e126d7f
> > > 
> > > Best regards,
> > > -- 
> > > Luca Weiss <luca.we...@fairphone.com>
> > > 
> 

Reply via email to