On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 10:39:20PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 9/23/24 21:17, Chanh Nguyen wrote: > > On 24/09/2024 04:23, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 09:38:00AM +0000, Chanh Nguyen wrote: > > > > The adt7462 supports monitoring and controlling up to > > > > four PWM Fan drive outputs and eight TACH inputs measures. > > > > The adt7462 supports reading a single on chip temperature > > > > sensor and three remote temperature sensors. There are up > > > > to 13 voltage monitoring inputs. > > > > > > > > Add device tree bindings for the adt7462 device. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chanh Nguyen <chanh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > Change in v2: > > > > - Add onnn,adt7462 to the list of trivial devices [Guenter] > > > > > > Is this really a trivial device? If it monitors and controls fans, how > > > come those do not need to be represented in the devicetree? How is it > > > possible to tell the difference between monitoring 1 and 4 fans without > > > the extra detail? > > > > > > > Hi Conor, Thank you for your comments! > > > > The chip is old. The driver was added back in 2008. > > > > Really, this is such an old chip that it would make more sense to just leave its driver alone unless there is a problem with it; this is viewpoint from Guenter. > > > > I'm using the driver and the device tree with only the "compatible" and "reg" properties; now it's being good for me without any extra detail. > > > > Guenter, Rob, Krzysztof, and I discussed making the decision to add this device to the list of trivial devices. You can get more information at thread https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240918220553.GA2216504-robh@xxxxxxxxxx/T/ (Because the commit title changed between v1 and v2, it's so hard for everyone to find it. Sorry! I missed mentioning the link to pacth v1). > > > > Guenter, who supported the driver development before, he suggested me add this device to the list of trivial devices. > > > > Historically it was ok to add an entry into trivial devices and extending > it later if/when needed. That was still widely done at least until very > recently. Maybe that changed recently. If so, sorry for bringing up the idea. > I did not envision that this might be a problem. > > Can you live with no devicetree entry at all for the chip ? That is of > course less than perfect, but it seems better than trying to design a > devicetree description for the chip only to never implement it. Since it sounds like Krzysztof assented to it, I'll just leave it for him to ack.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
