On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 04:01:09PM +0100, Punit Agrawal wrote: > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 03:38:36PM +0100, Punit Agrawal wrote: > >> Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> >> >> +Sensor bindings for the sensors based on SCPI Message Protocol > >> >> >> +-------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> >> +SCPI provides an API to access the various sensors on the SoC. > >> >> >> + > >> >> >> +Required properties: > >> >> >> +- compatible : should be "arm,scpi-sensors". > >> >> >> +- #thermal-sensor-cells: should be set to 1. This property follows the > >> >> >> + thermal device tree bindings[2]. > >> >> > > >> >> > You need to specify what the valid values for this cell are. > >> >> > >> >> The enumeration depends on the number of sensors exported by SCP > >> >> firmware - which is platform dependent. I could add add something like > >> >> if you think that is helpful - > >> >> > >> >> "Valid cell value is a number between 0..n-1, where n is the number > >> >> of sensors exported by SCP firmware." > >> > > >> > Can the FW identifer space have holes? Or are they always contiguous? > >> > >> The way the SCP interface is defined, the sensor identifiers are > >> contiguous, but not all are temperature sensors. > > > > Ok. So how exactly are they enumerated for this binding? > > The sensor enumeration for r0 (which I've verified) and r1 can be found > at [0]. The valid cell values are identifiers for the temperature sensors. Ok. That's fine by me; I was confused and thought that there was some internal mapping. > >> > If this is the same as the raw FW identifer value, specify that. > >> > Otherwise, you need to specify the mapping. > >> > >> I'll update the patch to add mappings for Juno r0 (and r1 if I can get > >> my hands on one). > > > > If there's identical logic mapping the two, we might just be able to > > describe that rather than having to add tables all the time. > > > > After seeing the mapping already published, I am wondering if there is > any value in duplicating the information. If there are no objections, > I'll update this patch to add pointers instead. That's fine by me. The important part is that the value is a raw Sensor ID as the FW uses. So long as we state that, the IDs themselves can come from whatever documentation is valid for a particular instance. Thanks for the info! Thanks, Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
