On Tuesday 22 September 2015 08:08:25 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > 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.
I'm not sure here, either way would work, and we are not particularly
consistent in this regard. Maybe someone else has a stronger preference.
> Also, would the index be derived from "@1", or should there be a reg property ?
There needs to be a 'reg' property. Sorry for missing that above.
Arnd
--
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
