Hi Rob
> > > > + temperature-sensors {
> > > > + ltd {
> > > > + status = "disabled";
> > >
> > > Don't show status in examples.
> > Hmm, ok. I found it useful to make clear that a sensor can be
> > disabled, but maybe that's just always the case?
>
> Yeah, this case is a bit special. The node not being present also disables it.
Oh, I didn't realize that a missing node defaults to "disabled". What
I want to achieve is that if a node is not present, we don't configure
it. The reason behind this is that the HW provides a mechanism to
configure itself at power-up from a connected EEPROM. In that case
we'd still want the list the nct7802 in the DTS, but without
configuration. This effectively is the current behavior.
>From what I understand from [1] and follow-ups, having the extra
"temperature-sensors" level is actually not what we want here and I
proposed a different solution in [2].
On that background, I'm wondering how we could have compatibility with
the previous behavior, where the individual sensors were not listed,
and just defaulted to whatever the HW came up with, whether that was
power-on defaults or loaded from an EEPROM.
What the code currently does is to check for the presence of
"temperature-sensors" and only attempt to configure any of them if
that top level node exists. This enables backwards-compatibility.
Going forward, I would have done the same for sensor@X and only
explicitly enable / disable the sensor if the node is present. If it's
not present, I'd use the power-on / EEPROM-provided defaults.
Thanks
Oskar.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hwmon/20210924114636.GB2694238@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hwmon/CABoTLcQYHZbsgzXN7XXKQdDn8S-YsuE+ks9WShAEKcBJojEfcQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
