Re: Please suggest proper format for DT properties.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 09/22/2015 01:36 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Saturday 19 September 2015 01:36:43 Constantine Shulyupin wrote:

I am designing DT support for a hwmon chip.
It has some sensors, each of them can be:
  - "disabled"
  - "thermal diode"
  - "thermistor"
  - "voltage"

Four possible options for DT properties format.

Option 1: Separated property for each sensor.

Example nct7802 node:

nct7802 {
         compatible = "nuvoton,nct7802";
         reg = <0x2a>;
         nuvoton,sensor1-type = "thermistor";
         nuvoton,sensor2-type = "disabled";
         nuvoton,sensor3-type = "voltage";
};

Option 2: Array of strings for all sensors.

nct7802 {
         compatible = "nuvoton,nct7802";
         reg = <0x2a>;
         nuvoton,sensors-types = "thermistor", "disabled", "voltage";
};

Option 3: Sets of 4 cells.

   Borrowed from marvell,reg-init and broadcom,c45-reg-init.

   The first cell is the page address,
   the second a register address within the page,
   the third cell contains a mask to be ANDed with the existing register
   value, and the fourth cell is ORed with the result to yield the
   new register value. If the third cell has a value of zero,
   no read of the existing value is performed.

Example nct7802 node:

nct7802 {
         compatible = "nuvoton,nct7802";
         reg = <0x2a>;
         nct7802,reg-init =
                 <0 0x21 0 0x01 > // START = 1
                 <0 0x22 0x03 0x02>; // RTD1_MD = 2
};


I would strongly prefer Option 1 or 2 over option 3.
Between 1 and 2, I'd probably go for 1. Another option might
be to have a subnode per sensor:

nct7802@2a {
         compatible = "nuvoton,nct7802";
         reg = <0x2a>;
	#address-cells=<1>;
	#size-cells=<0>;

	sensor@1 {
		compatible = "nuvoton,nct7802-thermistor";
		further-properties;
	};
	sensor@3 {
		compatible = "nuvoton,nct7802-voltage";
		for-example-range-mv = <0 5000>;
	};
};

I personally would prefer this approach. It would also make it easier to add more
properties. Wonder what is more appropriate, though - a compatible property or
something like the following ?
		sensor-type = "xxx";

I don't have a preference, just asking.

Also, would the index be derived from "@1", or should there be a reg property ?

In either case, I'd say that disabled sensors should not need to
be listed.

Agreed.

Thanks,
Guenter

--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]
  Powered by Linux