Dnia Sat, Oct 02, 2021 at 07:22:19AM -0700, Guenter Roeck napisał(a):
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 09:19:49AM +0200, Krzysztof Adamski wrote:
Add binding description for the per temperature channel configuration
like labels and n-factor.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Adamski <krzysztof.adamski@xxxxxxxxx>
---
.../devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,tmp421.yaml | 66 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 66 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,tmp421.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,tmp421.yaml
index 47040ace4f73..0d4ea2209500 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,tmp421.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,tmp421.yaml
@@ -24,12 +24,49 @@ properties:
reg:
maxItems: 1
+ '#address-cells':
+ const: 1
+
+ '#size-cells':
+ const: 0
+
required:
- compatible
- reg
additionalProperties: false
+patternProperties:
+ "^input@([0-4])$":
Was there agreement on "input" ? It is a somewhat odd name for a temperature
sensor. If that name can be used to distinguish child sensor types, it might
make sense to have a well defined name to state that this is a temperature
sensor.
Nope, no conclusion on that, yet, thus I did not change that and I was
still using the same approach I had on v1. For me it can be a "channel@X", a
"temperature@X".. whatever you decide.
However I'm in favor of some generic name, like "channel" or "input",
and using some "type property", if required, instead of calling the
nodes "temperatue@X", "voltage@X".
+ type: object
+ description: |
+ Represents channels of the device and their specific configuration.
+
+ properties:
+ reg:
+ description: |
+ The channel number. 0 is local channel, 1-4 are remote channels
Which of the supported chips has 4 remote channels ?
True, there is no TMP424. I will fix that in v4.
+ items:
+ minimum: 0
+ maximum: 4
+
+ label:
+ description: |
+ A descriptive name for this channel, like "ambient" or "psu".
+
+ n-factor:
n-factor or "ti,n-factor" ? The unit is chip specific, after all.
Or ti,nfactor, as used by tmp513? Again, there was no clear conclusion
so I didn't change that. Let me know what is your decision and I will
obey that.
+ description: |
+ The value (two's complement) to be programmed in the channel specific N correction register.
+ For remote channels only.
+ items:
+ minimum: 0
+ maximum: 1
Is this the correct value range ? The value range (in integer form) is
-128 .. 127 (or 0 .. 255 as unsigned), not 0..1.
True, I must have misunderstood this minimum/maximum and confused it
with the number of items or something. Now, since DT does not really
handle signed values and considers everything an unsigned, should I use
0..255 or -128..127?
Krzysztof
