> > Hmm, device tree bindings should be OS-neutral, sysfs is not. > > Why do we document this in the Linux kernel tree then? To describe which bindings Linux supports. > > with the active channels. Then again, what is the drawback of exporting > > all channels? > > Performance and user-friendliness. libsensors-based applications will > read all available attributes by default, and each reading takes time. > Letting the platform declare how the inputs are used allows for a sane > output for "sensors" and other similar tools out of the box, without > the user having to tinker with ignore statements in configuration files > to discard the nonsensical values. OK, that's fine I'd say. > > Is there another hwmon-driver doing so (couldn't find one)? > > If "doing so" means "letting the user define how the ADC inputs are > used", then yes, the pcf8591 driver does something similar, except that > it uses a module parameter for the setting, for historical reasons. > Platform-provided, per-device data is better in my opinion. OK. The thing is you can't map platform_data 1:1 to bindings, because most are very specific to the Linux-driver. Do you think something like "active-channels" would be sufficent for those other hwmon devices, too? (I still do not like "exported-channels", because there is no need to export the channels for the OS. The devicetree is primarily a hardware description language) Or maybe we go specific and say "ads1015,channel1 = 1"? Maybe somebody knows of a similar chips as a reference? Regards, Wolfram -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
