On 17/10/2022 02:53, Cosmin Tanislav wrote: > > > On 10/17/22 04:59, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 14/10/2022 08:37, Cosmin Tanislav wrote: >>> From: Cosmin Tanislav <cosmin.tanislav@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Add support for the following parts: >>> * LTC2984 >>> * LTC2986 >>> * LTM2985 >>> >>> The LTC2984 is a variant of the LTC2983 with EEPROM. >>> The LTC2986 is a variant of the LTC2983 with only 10 channels, >>> EEPROM and support for active analog temperature sensors. >>> The LTM2985 is software-compatible with the LTC2986. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Cosmin Tanislav <cosmin.tanislav@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../bindings/iio/temperature/adi,ltc2983.yaml | 63 +++++++++++++++++-- >>> 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/temperature/adi,ltc2983.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/temperature/adi,ltc2983.yaml >>> index 722781aa4697..c33ab524fb64 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/temperature/adi,ltc2983.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/temperature/adi,ltc2983.yaml >>> @@ -4,19 +4,27 @@ >>> $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/iio/temperature/adi,ltc2983.yaml# >>> $schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# >>> >>> -title: Analog Devices LTC2983 Multi-sensor Temperature system >>> +title: Analog Devices LTC2983, LTC2986, LTM2985 Multi-sensor Temperature system >>> >>> maintainers: >>> - Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> description: | >>> - Analog Devices LTC2983 Multi-Sensor Digital Temperature Measurement System >>> + Analog Devices LTC2983, LTC2984, LTC2986, LTM2985 Multi-Sensor Digital >>> + Temperature Measurement Systems >>> + >>> https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/2983fc.pdf >>> + https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/2984fb.pdf >>> + https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/29861fa.pdf >>> + https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/ltm2985.pdf >>> >>> properties: >>> compatible: >>> enum: >>> - adi,ltc2983 >>> + - adi,ltc2984 >>> + - adi,ltc2986 >>> + - adi,ltm2985 >>> >>> reg: >>> maxItems: 1 >>> @@ -26,7 +34,7 @@ properties: >>> >>> adi,mux-delay-config-us: >>> description: >>> - The LTC2983 performs 2 or 3 internal conversion cycles per temperature >>> + The device performs 2 or 3 internal conversion cycles per temperature >>> result. Each conversion cycle is performed with different excitation and >>> input multiplexer configurations. Prior to each conversion, these >>> excitation circuits and input switch configurations are changed and an >>> @@ -145,7 +153,7 @@ patternProperties: >>> adi,three-conversion-cycles: >>> description: >>> Boolean property which set's three conversion cycles removing >>> - parasitic resistance effects between the LTC2983 and the diode. >>> + parasitic resistance effects between the device and the diode. >>> type: boolean >>> >>> adi,average-on: >>> @@ -353,6 +361,41 @@ patternProperties: >>> description: Boolean property which set's the adc as single-ended. >>> type: boolean >>> >>> + "^temp@": >> >> There is already a property for thermocouple. Isn't a thermocouple a >> temperature sensor? IOW, why new property is needed? >> > This node is needed for active analog temperature sensors. > It has fewer options than the thermocouple, as it only supports > a table to map from voltage to temperature and specifying whether > the measurement is differential or single-ended. > > If you did as much as glimpsed at the datasheet you would have > understood. We receive a lot of bindings to review. If I glimpse through every datasheet, when would I work? Instead of expecting reviewer to dive into datasheets for this one particular sensor, make it explicit in commit msg. > >>> + type: object >>> + description: >>> + Represents a channel which is being used as an active analog temperature >>> + sensor. >>> + >>> + properties: >>> + adi,sensor-type: >>> + description: >>> + Identifies the sensor as an active analog temperature sensor. >>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 >>> + const: 31 >>> + >>> + adi,single-ended: >>> + description: Boolean property which sets the sensor as single-ended. >> >> Drop "Boolean property which sets" - it's obvious from the type. >> > > That's how the rest of the file is written. Not really an argument... You can correct the other pieces in separate patch. > >> >> >>> + type: boolean >>> + >>> + adi,custom-temp: >>> + description: >>> + This is a table, where each entry should be a pair of >> >> "This is a table" - obvious from the type. >> > > That's how the rest of the file is written. > >>> + voltage(mv)-temperature(K). The entries must be given in nv and uK >> >> mv-K or nv-uK? Confusing... > > That's how the rest of the file is written. The same. > > The chip uses mv-K, but the binding specifies nv-uK, the driver > translates it into the appropriate unit. It does not matter here, what the driver is doing. Use only one unit here, matching the DTS. > >> >>> + so that, the original values must be multiplied by 1000000. For >>> + more details look at table 71 and 72. >> >> There is no table 71 in the bindings... It seems you pasted it from >> somewhere. >> > > It's pretty obvious that "Table" in a binding refers to the datasheet. There are multiple datasheets and how would I know to which one this refers? > But if you meant datasheet, not binding, you're looking at the wrong > datasheet then. > Also, that's how the rest of the file is written. Not really an argument... Poor examples like to spread, it's an effort to drop them. > >>> + Note should be signed, but dtc doesn't currently maintain the >>> + sign. >> >> What do you mean? "Maintain" as allow or keep when building FDT? What's >> the problem of using negative numbers here and why it should be part of >> bindings? >> > > You're really clueless, I'll let you figure it out on your own. Yes, I am clueless and that's not the way how the review conversation should look like. NAK. > Also, that's how the rest of the file is written. > >>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint64-matrix >>> + minItems: 3 >>> + maxItems: 64 >>> + items: >>> + minItems: 2 >>> + maxItems: 2 >> >> Instead describe the items with "description" (and maybe constraints) >> like here: >> >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.19/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/st,stm32-adc.yaml#L278 >> > > That's how the rest of the file is written. > If you really want to use something different, you can submit a > patch later and fix the whole binding however you want. Nope. I expect the new pieces to be correct, not incorrect because "there is already poor pattern, so I will do the same". If inconsistency bothers you, anyone can fix it in following up patch. Also you. Best regards, Krzysztof
