> > In many cases the channels are "shared" - we have 3 voltage, 3 current and 3
> > power sensors but in fact they are not separate sensors but 3 channels
> > each able to measure 3 different things and they may share some common
> > properties in each channel (so current, voltage and power may be
> > calculated bases on the same shunt resistor or correction factor). An
> > example being adi,ltc2992. In those cases it doesn't make sense to have
> > two levels as how would you describe the shared parent? Call it generic
> > "channels"?
So in that case (e.g. for the nct7802, see [1]) do we want just
1-level, maybe like this:
nct7802@28 {
compatible = "nuvoton,nct7802";
reg = <0x28>;
sensor@1 { /* RTD1 */
reg = <0x1>;
status = "okay";
mode = "thermistor"; /* Any of "thermistor", "thermal-diode",
"voltage" */
};
sensor@2 { /* RTD2 */
reg = <0x2>;
status = "okay";
mode = "thermal-diode"; /* Any of "thermistor",
"thermal-diode", "voltage" */
};
sensor@3 { /* RTD3 */
reg = <0x3>;
status = "okay";
mode = "voltage"; /* Any of "thermistor", "voltage" */
};
sensor@4 { /* LTD */
reg = <0x4>; /* using the same number as in sysfs */
status = "okay";
/* No mode configuration for LTD */
};
};
In this example, RTD1, RTD2 and LTD would be temperature sensors and
RTD3 would be a voltage sensor.
Would that make more sense? Is the use of strings acceptable?
Thanks
Oskar.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210921004627.2786132-1-osk@xxxxxxxxxx/
