On 09/25/2018 08:08 PM, Nicolin Chen wrote:
Hello Guenter,
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 06:52:29PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
+2) child nodes
+ Required properties:
+ - reg: Must be 0, 1 or 2, corresponding to IN1, IN2 or IN3 port of INA3221
+
+ Optional properties:
+ - label: Name of the input source
+ - shunt-resistor-micro-ohms: Shunt resistor value in micro-Ohm
+ - status: Should be "disabled" if no input source
+
+ Example:
+
+ input@0 {
+ reg = <0x0>;
+ status = "disabled";
I kind of feel embarrassed that I asked for the reg change ... especially while
saying at the same time that I would like to see this work for other chips
as well.
Well, though I didn't mention it, yet I changed it to "reg" is more
likely an agreement than a compromise: I searched in the mail list
and then found this mail (a year ago though):
https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg2455439.html
I feel it very similar to my case. So rather than betting Rob won't
tell me the same, changing to "reg" may reduce a turnaround time :)
Other chips have different kinds of sensors. Voltage, current, power, temperature,
and others. Whatever we come up with should support that.
I see two possibilities right now. We can stick with reg and add a "type" property,
or we can make the index something like
{voltage,current,power,temperature,humidity}-{id,index}
One small concern is a case of being multi-type. For example, I saw
ina2xx driver having voltage, current and power at the same time...
Yes, with that we would have something like
voltage@0 {
type = "voltage";
reg = <0>;
};
current@0 {
type = "current";
reg = <0>;
};
...
or
voltage@0 {
voltage-id = <0>;
};
current@0 {
current-id = <0>;
};
...
I personally prefer "type", but I don't really have a strong opinion.
What do you think ?
I also like this over "reg" -- "reg" requires two extra properties,
and itself sounds slightly unnatural to me for situations like this
one where we don't use it as a register address, although I know it
is convenient and common to use.
With "type", we would still need two properties.
reg = <0>;
type = "voltage";
and type could be optional or not required for a chip only supporting
a single sensor type (like the ina3221).
This would be equivalent to, say,
voltage-index = <0>;
when using a single property.
With the "reg" approach, we would be ok for now - however, I would like
to get feedback from Rob if introducing a "type" property will be
acceptable when the time comes to do so.
Or maybe we should really wait for feedback from Rob.
Personally I don't mind it all to change the doc and code and then
send a v6. But eventually we'll still need the final Acked-by from
Rob right? Then I guess it's the only option.
Yes. At this point I'd rather have input from Rob than moving forward
with v6.
By the way, I have two ina3221 hwmon patches that rebase upon this
binding series. And I'd like to send them out to go through review
first, but I am not sure if you'd be okay for it -- I don't really
like to change their rebase order as it might mess up something.
Are those bug fixes or further enhancements ? For enhancements,
it is your call when to send them; I am fine either way. If they are
bug fixes, they should come first so we can apply them to -stable.
Thanks,
Guenter
