On 08/08/2013 01:40 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 08/08/2013 02:36 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
Hello.
On 08/08/2013 10:56 AM, Wei Ni wrote:
Enable thermal sensor nct1008 for t114 dalmore.
Signed-off-by: Wei Ni <wni@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra114-dalmore.dts | 10 +++++++++-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra114-dalmore.dts
b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra114-dalmore.dts
index b5a42f0..9d4d2b2 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra114-dalmore.dts
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra114-dalmore.dts
@@ -738,6 +738,14 @@
realtek,ldo1-en-gpios =
<&gpio TEGRA_GPIO(V, 3) GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
};
+
+ nct1008 {
ePAPR [1] says: "the name of a node should be somewhat generic,
reflecting the function of the device and not its precise programming
model". So I suggest "thermal"
True, although there's quite some precedent for node-names being the
chip name for external chips in existing DTs. If we change this node
name, I'd like to see a patch that makes all the other "nct1008" nodes
match the new name...
On the other side, one should not use a bad example as an argument or excuse
to make the same mistake again (though I keep hearing it all the time ... ).
I for my part tend to use something like temp-sensor or temp-sensor@1c.
Advantage of that kind of node name is that it auto-describes the node.
Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
