Messages in this thread | | | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: hwmon: Add nct7802 bindings | Date | Thu, 16 Sep 2021 13:07:39 -0700 |
| |
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
| |