On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 07:43:33PM +0100, Tomasz Duszynski wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 08:58:19AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 07:19:16PM +0100, Tomasz Duszynski wrote: > > > Add device tree support for Plantower PMS7003 particulate matter sensor. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tomasz Duszynski <tduszyns@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > .../iio/chemical/plantower,pms7003.txt | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/chemical/plantower,pms7003.txt > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/chemical/plantower,pms7003.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/chemical/plantower,pms7003.txt > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 000000000000..e4c7f2fb1e30 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/chemical/plantower,pms7003.txt > > > @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ > > > +* Plantower PMS7003 particulate matter sensor > > > + > > > +Required properties: > > > +- compatible: must be "plantower,pms7003" > > > + > > > +Optional properties: > > > +- vcc-supply: phandle to the regulator that provides power to the sensor > > > > Shouldn't this one be a required property? > > > > Driver does not use regulator framework hence to me this property fits > here better. The device tree describes hardware, not any particular driver. That said, there is a bit of an on-going debate on whether mandatory supplies (from a hardware perspective) should always be represented in device tree or not. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181123133126.GF2089@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180409102244.GB11532@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180425171123.xhyoay3nu463btoq@rob-hp-laptop/T/#u > > > +- set-gpios: phandle to the GPIO connected to the SET line > > > +- reset-gpios: phandle to the GPIO connected to the RESET line > > > + > > > +Refer to serial/slave-device.txt for generic serial attached device bindings. > > > + > > > +Example: > > > + > > > +&uart0 { > > > + pms7003 { > > > > The node name should be generic and reflect the functionality rather > > than model. Perhaps "pms" will do here. > > Agree, ideally we should have a generic dt name for this kind of sensors > (something like air-pollution-sensor perhaps?). But unfortunately there isn't > anything available now so I guess compatible part name should be okay > (besides this is the type of naming commonly used in other iio bindings). What's wrong with particulate matter sensor ("pms")? Seems like a better fix than any particular model name to me at least. > > > + compatible = "plantower,pms7003"; > > > + }; > > > +}; Johan
