Correct the mismatched macro name in the #endif comment.

Fixes: 9f1bdd7e8221 ("dt-bindings: pinctrl: mediatek: add support for mt8188")
Signed-off-by: Akari Tsuyukusa <akkun11.open@gmail.com>
---
 include/dt-bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt8188-pinfunc.h | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt8188-pinfunc.h b/include/dt-bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt8188-pinfunc.h
index 2688da2f621f..66a451953838 100644
--- a/include/dt-bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt8188-pinfunc.h
+++ b/include/dt-bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt8188-pinfunc.h
@@ -1277,4 +1277,4 @@
 #define PINMUX_GPIO176__FUNC_B_GPIO176 (MTK_PIN_NO(176) | 0)
 #define PINMUX_GPIO176__FUNC_B0_SPMI_M_SDA (MTK_PIN_NO(176) | 1)
 
-#endif /* __MEDIATEK_MT8188-PINFUNC_H */
+#endif /* __MEDIATEK_MT8188_PINFUNC_H */
-- 
2.53.0

On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 01:15:33PM +0900, Akari Tsuyukusa wrote:
> Correct the mismatched macro name in the #endif comment.
> 
> Fixes: 9f1bdd7e8221 ("dt-bindings: pinctrl: mediatek: add support for mt8188")

No bug here, otherwise explain user-visible issues.

> Signed-off-by: Akari Tsuyukusa <akkun11.open@gmail.com>
> ---
>  include/dt-bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt8188-pinfunc.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt8188-pinfunc.h b/include/dt-bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt8188-pinfunc.h
> index 2688da2f621f..66a451953838 100644
> --- a/include/dt-bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt8188-pinfunc.h
> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt8188-pinfunc.h
> @@ -1277,4 +1277,4 @@
>  #define PINMUX_GPIO176__FUNC_B_GPIO176 (MTK_PIN_NO(176) | 0)
>  #define PINMUX_GPIO176__FUNC_B0_SPMI_M_SDA (MTK_PIN_NO(176) | 1)
>  
> -#endif /* __MEDIATEK_MT8188-PINFUNC_H */
> +#endif /* __MEDIATEK_MT8188_PINFUNC_H */

No, just a churn. This has no benefit, because it is obvious which if/endif
this corresponds to.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 10:39 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> No bug here, otherwise explain user-visible issues.

Ok, I'll be careful in the future.

> No, just a churn. This has no benefit, because it is obvious which if/endif
> this corresponds to.

I understand your point.
Certainly these patches do not affect the compiled kernel.
However, I found that there are over 400 instances of mismatched include
guard comments across the kernel. While it doesn't cause bugs, I thought
this discrepancy should be addressed for consistency and readability.

Anyway, I withdraw patch 4, 5, 6.

Best regards,
Akari