On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 09:56:09PM +0100, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On 09/03/17 10:17, Carlo Caione wrote: > >> From: Carlo Caione <carlo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Document the new property `scpi,sensors-scale` used by the hwmon-scpi > >> driver to convert the sensor readings to the correct / expected scale. > >> > > > > I am fine with DT bindings if DT maintainers agree with having one but I > > would like to add couple of points to get their feedback: > > > > 1. ARM recognized the drawbacks of SCPI which started informally with > > ARM Ltd platforms and got adopted by few vendors. It's now being > > worked on and a much better and scalable replacement protocol is > > being discussed with vendors now. So future enhancement to this SCPI > > protocol is unlikely. > > > > 2. AmLogic has diverted from base protocol in many ways and most of them > > are handled with just compatible so far without any need for > > additional bindings. Can we avoid it ? > > > > So based on these, I prefer not to add more bindings to handle such > > deviations but make it just AmLogic specific. > could you please share your idea where this "Amlogic specific > implementation" fits best? > - in firmware/arm_scpi to keep a contract (for example: millicelsius) > to everyone who reads a temperature sensor for example > - or in hwmon/scpi-hwmon > So far the assumption was that it would be in hwmon. I don't mind for it to be elsewhere, but I would think that the presence or non-presence of a devicetree property should not affect or change the implementation. Thanks, Guenter -- 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
