st,thermal-flags is a required property in SPEAr Thermal Sensor node,
which is incorrectly written as thermal_flags in spear13xx.dtsi.

Rename thermal_flags to st,thermal-flags to fix the property name

Signed-off-by: Gopi Krishna Menon <krishnagopi487@gmail.com>
---
Changes since v1:
- Reword the commit message and subject

Note:
* This patch is part of the GSoC2026 application process for device tree bindings conversions
* https://github.com/LinuxFoundationGSoC/ProjectIdeas/wiki/GSoC-2026-Device-Tree-Bindings

 arch/arm/boot/dts/st/spear13xx.dtsi | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/st/spear13xx.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/st/spear13xx.dtsi
index 159e941708ca..97357680dd51 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/st/spear13xx.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/st/spear13xx.dtsi
@@ -332,7 +332,7 @@ wdt@ec800620 {
 			thermal@e07008c4 {
 				compatible = "st,thermal-spear1340";
 				reg = <0xe07008c4 0x4>;
-				thermal_flags = <0x7000>;
+				st,thermal-flags = <0x7000>;
 			};
 		};
 	};
-- 
2.52.0

On Sun, Mar 29, 2026 at 11:45:20AM +0530, Gopi Krishna Menon wrote:
> st,thermal-flags is a required property in SPEAr Thermal Sensor node,
> which is incorrectly written as thermal_flags in spear13xx.dtsi.
> 
> Rename thermal_flags to st,thermal-flags to fix the property name

Does this have an impact? If yes, then why no fixes? If no, then why
not? How this could ever worked? Maybe this is completely unnecessary.

We already talked about this and I don't get why this change is neeeded
and why we discuss the same problem.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

On 29/03/2026 11:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2026 at 11:45:20AM +0530, Gopi Krishna Menon wrote:
>> st,thermal-flags is a required property in SPEAr Thermal Sensor node,
>> which is incorrectly written as thermal_flags in spear13xx.dtsi.
>>
>> Rename thermal_flags to st,thermal-flags to fix the property name
> 
> Does this have an impact? If yes, then why no fixes? If no, then why
> not? How this could ever worked? Maybe this is completely unnecessary.
> 
> We already talked about this and I don't get why this change is neeeded
> and why we discuss the same problem.

and by "this change" I meant, "rename" part, instead of "removal".

Your task is analyze entire code, understand what was wrong and provide
proper solution.

Best regards,
Krzysztof