[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51F15E9F.1080600@ti.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:21:35 -0400
From: Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@...com>
To: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>
CC: Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@...com>,
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 25-07-2013 12:38, Pawel Moll wrote:
> 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 :-)
>
ahh ok.. I see.
> Pawel
>
>
>
>
--
You have got to be excited about what you are doing. (L. Lamport)
Eduardo Valentin
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (296 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists