[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1374770294.3213.35.camel@hornet>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:38:14 +0100
From: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>
To: Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@...com>
Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Durgadoss R <durgadoss.r@...el.com>,
"Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>, Wei Ni <wni@...dia.com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"lm-sensors@...sensors.org" <lm-sensors@...sensors.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: device thermal limits represented in device tree nodes
On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 17:15 +0100, Pawel Moll wrote:
> > Another way, as I mentioned in the original RFC, an option would be to
> > have the thermal_zone node not embedded in any device node. But them, we
> > would need to firmly link it to other device nodes, to describe what is
> > monitored and what is used for monitoring.
>
> You mean the zone nodes would live at the top level of the tree? To my
> mind the root represents the device (the board, whatever you call it),
What I wanted to say was: ... so the zone would still be embedded in a
device node :-)
Pawel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists