lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Sep]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] dt-bindings: hwmon: Add nct7802 bindings
    Date
    On 9/16/21 12:53 PM, Oskar Senft wrote:
    >> Ah, using the node name as indication for both sensor type and
    >> index ? SGTM, though we'd really need input from Rob.
    >> I guess one could also consider something more generic like
    >> "temperature-sensor@0", "voltage-sensor@0", and so on (instead
    >> of [mis-]using reg and a sensor-type field).
    >
    > Hmm, in that case, maybe we should just remove the "sensors" section.
    >
    > i2c {
    > #address-cells = <1>;
    > #size-cells = <0>;
    >
    > nct7802@28 {
    > compatible = "nuvoton,nct7802";
    > reg = <0x28>;
    > #address-cells = <1>;
    > #size-cells = <0>;
    >
    > temperature-sensor@0 { /* LTD */
    > status = "okay";
    > label = "my local temperature";
    > };
    >
    > temperature-sensor@1 { /* RTD1 */
    > status = "okay";
    > mode = <0x2>; /* 3904 transistor */
    > label = "other temperature";
    > };
    >
    > temperature-sensor@3 { */ RTD3 */
    > status = "okay";
    > mode = <0x3>; /* thermal diode */
    > label = "3rd temperature";
    > };
    > };
    > };
    >

    I think there was a reason for "sensors", because there can be other
    bindings on the same level. Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ltc2978.txt
    lists "regulators", for example.

    Where did you find the "sensors" example for ltc2978 ? I don't see it
    in the upstream kernel. Or was that derived from the official "regulators"
    bindings ?

    > Now, with "sensors" removed and everything at "top-level", we'll need
    > to decide what to do if individual sensors are missing. I guess in
    > that case I would just leave the affected sensors alone, i.e. neither
    > configure nor disable them and instead read their status from HW. That
    > way prior uses of the nct7802 in device trees will continue to behave
    > as before as does the EEPROM-style configuration.
    >
    > I would like to focus on the implementation of the temperature-sensor
    > entries for now (i.e. LTD, RTD1, RTD2, RTD3). Support for other sensor
    > types could be added in a separate change. Would that be acceptable?
    >

    Yes, let's do that. I'd like us to keep the "sensors" subnode to have a clear
    association and differentiator to other sub-nodes such as "regulators".
    Open is if we can use "temperature-sensor@0" or if it would have to be
    a chip specific "ltd", but I think we can sort that out after suggesting
    an initial set of bindings to Rob.

    Thanks,
    Guenter

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2021-09-16 22:08    [W:3.204 / U:1.744 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site