Hi Javi, Sorry for late response. On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 11:10:52AM +0000, Javi Merino wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 12:55:59PM -0800, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 09:57:43PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote: [...] > > > > > > > The property "hysteresis" is mandatory for trip points, so if without > > > > > > > it the thermal zone cannot register successfully. But "hysteresis" is > > > > > > > ignored in the thermal subsystem and only inquired by several thermal > > > > > > > sensor drivers. > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Linux thermal subsystem has a problem with handling hysteresis, I > > > > > > would rather fix Linux code than relaxing the DT binding. Or if you > > > > > > still believe hysteresis is really optional, I would prefer to see a > > > > > > better justification than "Linux ignores it". > > > > > > > > I see it the other way round, Is hysteresis a property that, without > > > > it, the thermal code can't configure itself so it fails to create the > > > > trip point? The current code goes "There is no hysteresis for this > > > > property, I don't know how to set up this trip point!". I think we > > > > can do better than this. > > > > > > Do you agree with Javi's suggestion? If you think it's okay, I will > > > move on to send out a new version patch based on Javi's comments. > > > > No I don't. This discussion so far has been about Linux code. I still > > havent seen an argument explaining why hysteresis has to be optional. > > Fair enough. Looks like I'm holding this driver from being > upstreamed, so I'll back off. > > Leo, sorry for misguiding you. Please bring back the hysteresis > property you had in v1. Not at all. I will add back hysteresis property and resend new patches. Thanks, Leo Yan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
