lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Please suggest proper format for DT properties.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Constantine Shulyupin
<const@makelinux.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am designing DT support for a hwmon chip.
> It has some sensors, each of them can be:
> - "disabled"
> - "thermal diode"
> - "thermistor"
> - "voltage"
>
> Four possible options for DT properties format.
>
> Option 1: Separated property for each sensor.
>
> Example nct7802 node:
>
> nct7802 {
> compatible = "nuvoton,nct7802";
> reg = <0x2a>;
> nuvoton,sensor1-type = "thermistor";
> nuvoton,sensor2-type = "disabled";
> nuvoton,sensor3-type = "voltage";
> };
>
> Option 2: Array of strings for all sensors.
>
> nct7802 {
> compatible = "nuvoton,nct7802";
> reg = <0x2a>;
> nuvoton,sensors-types = "thermistor", "disabled", "voltage";
> };

It seems you are just listing out all possible modes. Why do you need
this in the DT at all? This can be inferred by the compatible string.

>
> Option 3: Sets of 4 cells.
>
> Borrowed from marvell,reg-init and broadcom,c45-reg-init.
>
> The first cell is the page address,
> the second a register address within the page,
> the third cell contains a mask to be ANDed with the existing register
> value, and the fourth cell is ORed with the result to yield the
> new register value. If the third cell has a value of zero,
> no read of the existing value is performed.

I don't see how this relates to the first 2 options. The register you
write selects the mode? In general, we don't want bindings of just
random register writes.

Rob


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-21 04:21    [W:0.063 / U:62.796 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site