Quoting Rob Herring (2020-08-06 15:12:34) > On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 12:14 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 20:01:06 -0600 > > Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 1:00 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > This is mostly a decision for Rob to make, but I would make it required > > > > because the device is always an io channel provider. It may be that it > > > > isn't providing anything in the DT to something else in the DT but it is > > > > providing this information somewhere so always having to spell that out > > > > is simple and doesn't hurt. > > > > > > I agree. If the user is split in a board file or overlay, we don't > > > want to have to be adding it to the provider at that time. > > > > That is perhaps a reasonable view point for devices with channels that > > are likely to be used by consumer drivers, but in this particular case we > > are talking about a proximity sensor. So far I don't think we > > have any consumer drivers for this type of sensor (I might have forgotten > > one of course!) > > Indeed, I didn't consider whether it made sense in the first place. So > should it just not be specified at all in this case? I can't really > picture what the usecase for a consumer node would be. > I was thinking that a WiFi DT node may directly grab the channel from this device and use this for SAR power changes. That would avoid going all the way to userspace to figure out that something is close proximity and then tell WiFi to reduce power.
