Messages in this thread | | | From | Oskar Senft <> | Date | Thu, 16 Sep 2021 23:09:16 -0400 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: hwmon: Add nct7802 bindings |
| |
Ok, I experimented with that and I think I'm starting to get an idea how the DT bindings YAML works.
> > 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.
However, I found that when I use the name@x syntax, the schema validator also requires the use of a reg or ranges property. But then doing so requires to set the #address-cells and #size-cells properties, which - I think - makes things weird.
So these two examples are options that validate: i2c { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>;
nct7802@28 { compatible = "nuvoton,nct7802"; reg = <0x28>;
temperature-sensors { ltd { status = "disabled"; label = "mainboard temperature"; };
rtd1 { status = "okay"; label = "inlet temperature"; type = <4> /* thermistor */; }; }; }; };
or
i2c { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>;
nct7802@28 { compatible = "nuvoton,nct7802"; reg = <0x28>;
temperature-sensors { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>;
sensor@0 { reg = <0>; status = "disabled"; label = "mainboard temperature"; };
sensor@1 { reg = <1>; status = "okay"; label = "inlet temperature"; type = <4> /* thermistor */; }; }; }; };
In the second case we end up having to duplicate information, i.e. "sensor@1" and "reg = <1>". Also, I have not yet found a way to validate that the "@x" is identical to the "reg = <x>". I believe that this is just how it is in device trees, but I want to make sure this is what we want?
Thoughts?
Thanks Oskar.
| |