On 5/11/22 10:21, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 11/05/2022 19:00, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 5/11/22 08:32, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 10/05/2022 10:08, Holger Brunck wrote:
Some devices can operate in an extended temperature mode.
Therefore add a boolean onsemi,extended-range-enable to be able to
select this feature in the device tree node.
Signed-off-by: Holger Brunck <holger.brunck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxxx>
cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>
cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/national,lm90.yaml | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/national,lm90.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/national,lm90.yaml
index 30db92977937..92afa01380eb 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/national,lm90.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/national,lm90.yaml
@@ -52,6 +52,10 @@ properties:
vcc-supply:
description: phandle to the regulator that provides the +VCC supply
+ onsemi,extended-range-enable:
+ description: Set to enable extended range temperature.
+ type: boolean
There is no such vendor and it does not match the existing vendor for
these bindings (nor the current owner of National). Was there some
change? What is onsemi?
My bad, I should have looked up official prefixes before suggesting onsemi
as an option. That should have been "onnn".
It should be either onnn (for adt7461/adt7461a) or ti for tmp451
and tmp461. adi instead of onnn may make sense since that is already
used in the driver. I personally don't have a preference.
Me neither. Just pick one matching the device actually using this
property. If all of them are using it, how about keeping old "national"
or it's owner "ti"? If not all of them are using it, then this would
need "allOf:if:then" restricting where the property is (not) applicable.
It is only applicable for tmp451, tmp461, and adt7461[a], so it looks
like "allOf:if:then" will be needed. Note that none of those chips are
or have ever been owned by National. Given that, maybe ti would be most
appropriate ?
Thanks,
Guenter
