On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 03:41:44PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 02:59:12PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 7/3/20 8:37 AM, Daniel M. Weeks wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel M. Weeks <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/lm75.txt | 2 +-
> > > drivers/hwmon/lm75.c | 8 ++++----
> > > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/lm75.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/lm75.txt
> > > index 273616702c51..e5bb554cd2c3 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/lm75.txt
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/lm75.txt
> > > @@ -14,10 +14,10 @@ Required properties:
> > > "maxim,max6626",
> > > "maxim,max31725",
> > > "maxim,max31726",
> > > - "maxim,mcp980x",
> > > "nxp,pct2075",
> > > "st,stds75",
> > > "st,stlm75",
> > > + "microchip,mcp980x",
> > > "microchip,tcn75",
> > > "ti,tmp100",
> > > "ti,tmp101",
> > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lm75.c b/drivers/hwmon/lm75.c
> > > index ba0be48aeadd..a8cfc7e4a685 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/hwmon/lm75.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/lm75.c
> > > @@ -690,10 +690,6 @@ static const struct of_device_id __maybe_unused lm75_of_match[] = {
> > > .compatible = "maxim,max31726",
> > > .data = (void *)max31725
> > > },
> > > - {
> > > - .compatible = "maxim,mcp980x",
> > > - .data = (void *)mcp980x
> > > - },
> > > {
> > > .compatible = "nxp,pct2075",
> > > .data = (void *)pct2075
> > > @@ -706,6 +702,10 @@ static const struct of_device_id __maybe_unused lm75_of_match[] = {
> > > .compatible = "st,stlm75",
> > > .data = (void *)stlm75
> > > },
> > > + {
> > > + .compatible = "microchip,mcp980x",
> > > + .data = (void *)mcp980x
> >
> > Hmm, makes me wonder if we should replace this with correct chip names
> > since we are at it. After all, it only includes mcp980{0,1,2,3} and not mcp9805.
> >
> > Rob, any thoughts ?
>
> Do we need to distinguish the chips? Aren't there existing users?
>
We don't specifically need to distinguish mcp908[0123], but "x"
does not represent [0-9], only [0-3]. This driver does not support
mcp9805, for example. I don't know how this kind of situation is
handled in other drivers.
Looks like there are no existing in-kernel users. The initial entry for
mcp980x was added back in 2008, with no DT support in mind.
"maxim,mcp980x" was added with of_device_id table in 2017, with no one
(including me) realizing that this is not a Maxim chip.
Guenter
