On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:12:29AM -0500, atull wrote: > On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:37:48PM -0500, atull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > From: Alan Tull <atull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Add device tree bindings documentation for ltc2978. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alan Tull <atull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > v2: clean whitespace > > > --- > > > .../devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ltc2978.txt | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ltc2978.txt > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ltc2978.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ltc2978.txt > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000..b2d9c4d > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ltc2978.txt > > > @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ > > > +ltc2978 > > > + > > > +Required properties: > > > + - compatible: one of: ltc2974, ltc2977, ltc2978, ltc3880, ltc3883, ltm4676 > > > + - reg: I2C address > > > + > > > +Optional properties: > > > + Name of the optional regulator subnode must be "regulators". > > > > This is currently a problem. The regulator core trats it as mandatory, > > meaning I get error messages such as > > > > ltc2978 5-005e: Failed to find regulator container node > > > > if not specified. We'll have to sort out with the regulator core how this should > > be handled. > > Followup on this: Since the regulator core considers the property to be mandatory (which I guess makes some sense for a presumed regulator), you'll have to check in the calling code and ensure that a 'regulators' entry is there prior to calling the regulator code. > > > + - #address-cells must be 1. > > > + - #size-cells must be 0. > > > + > > > > Checking this out, those do not seem to be necessary. > > I just tried it, and don't see a need for it myself. > > > > > > + For each regulator: > > > + - reg: regulator number > > > > This does not seem to be necessary either. > > Same here. For some reason I thought they were required. > I'll take them out of the bindings doc. > > > > > > + - regulator-compatible: must be vout_en<regulator number> such as vout_en3 > > > + valid range is: > > > + ltc2977, ltc2978 : vout_en0 - vout_en7 > > > + ltc2974 : vout_en0 - vout_en3 > > > + ltc3880, ltm4676 : vout_en0 - vout_en1 > > > + ltc3883 : vout_en0 only > > > > Besides the unnecessary _en, > > I don't mind taking out the '_en'. I was trying to name these > after pin names on the device. I thought that was the norm. > If someone adds voltage support later, that will look even > weirder, so I agree that should change. > > > this is a problem if there is more than one > > supported chip in the system, if DEBUG_FS is enabled, and if names are not > > specified in the devicetree file. I get a lot of error messages in a > > system with a large number of LTC2978 chips. > > > > vout3: Failed to create debugfs directory > > vout4: Failed to create debugfs directory > > vout5: Failed to create debugfs directory > > vout6: Failed to create debugfs directory > > vout7: Failed to create debugfs directory > > vout2: Failed to create debugfs directory > > vout3: Failed to create debugfs directory > > > > and so on (40+ times in my system). We will have to find a solution for this > > problem. > > Note that whatever name is here is going to be the compatible > string for this particular regulator output in the DT. > Yes, but I don't want to have to specify dummy names even for unused regulator channels. There are lots of those in our systems (see below). > It seems like this can't be the only case of this in the kernel. > I imagine there are lots of boards with multiple regulators but > no regulator info specified. I'll have to dig a bit to see why > this isn't an issue for other regulator drivers. > My wild guess is that it is quite atypical to have multiple regulators of the same type in a system, so maybe it is as simple as no one hitting the problem before. Problem is that we can not add bus numbers and/or the device address into the name either. Bus numbers can change across reboots, and there can be multiple chips with the same i2c address on different busses. Example: ltc2978-i2c-2-5c ltc2978-i2c-5-5d ltc2978-i2c-5-5e ltc2978-i2c-5-5f ltc2978-i2c-5-60 ltc2978-i2c-5-61 ltc2978-i2c-5-62 ltc2978-i2c-11-5c ltc2978-i2c-12-5c >From another system: ltc2978-i2c-37-5d ltc2978-i2c-37-5e ltc2978-i2c-37-5f ltc2978-i2c-37-60 ltc2978-i2c-37-61 ltc2978-i2c-37-62 ltc2978-i2c-45-5d ltc2978-i2c-45-5e ltc2978-i2c-45-5f ltc2978-i2c-45-60 ltc2978-i2c-45-61 ltc2978-i2c-45-62 ltc2978-i2c-53-5d ltc2978-i2c-53-5f ltc2978-i2c-53-60 ltc2978-i2c-53-61 ltc2978-i2c-53-62 ltc2978-i2c-61-5d ltc2978-i2c-61-5e ltc2978-i2c-69-5d ltc2978-i2c-69-5e ltc2978-i2c-21-5c ltc2978-i2c-22-5c Yes, that may be a bit excessive, but it is from real systems. > > > > I also get > > > > vout7: no parameters > > > > for each regulator which is a bit annoying with 50+ of those regulators > > in the system. > > Yes I see that and tried to make it stop (but couldn't). It is not > really helpful information. > I think this will have to be fixed in the infrastructure. The message should probably be a debug message. Thanks, Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
