Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 08 Aug 2013 14:33:45 -0700 | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: dt: t114 dalmore: add dt entry for nct1008 |
| |
On 08/08/2013 01:40 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 08/08/2013 02:36 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: >> Hello. >> >> On 08/08/2013 10:56 AM, Wei Ni wrote: >> >>> Enable thermal sensor nct1008 for t114 dalmore. >> >>> Signed-off-by: Wei Ni <wni@nvidia.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra114-dalmore.dts | 10 +++++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra114-dalmore.dts >>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra114-dalmore.dts >>> index b5a42f0..9d4d2b2 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra114-dalmore.dts >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra114-dalmore.dts >>> @@ -738,6 +738,14 @@ >>> realtek,ldo1-en-gpios = >>> <&gpio TEGRA_GPIO(V, 3) GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; >>> }; >>> + >>> + nct1008 { >> >> ePAPR [1] says: "the name of a node should be somewhat generic, >> reflecting the function of the device and not its precise programming >> model". So I suggest "thermal" > > True, although there's quite some precedent for node-names being the > chip name for external chips in existing DTs. If we change this node > name, I'd like to see a patch that makes all the other "nct1008" nodes > match the new name... >
On the other side, one should not use a bad example as an argument or excuse to make the same mistake again (though I keep hearing it all the time ... ). I for my part tend to use something like temp-sensor or temp-sensor@1c. Advantage of that kind of node name is that it auto-describes the node.
Guenter
| |