[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <577BE091.2050200@roeck-us.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:30:09 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] dt/bindings: Add bindings for JC-42.4 compatible
temperature sensors
On 07/05/2016 08:48 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 10:05:42AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> Provide generic bindings for all Jedec JC-42.4 compatible temperature
>> sensor chips.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
>> ---
>> RFC to address:
>> - Is "jc-42-4" ok to use for JC-42.4 ?
>> - JC42.4 really specifies an SPD EEPROM with included temperature sensor.
>
> That would be at a different address?
>
Yes. The EEPROM is at address 0x5[0-7], the temperature sensor is at 0x1[8-f].
>> Is "jedec,jc42-4" appropriate, or should it rather be something like
>> "jedec,jc-42-4-sensor" ?
>
> If yes, then probably the latter. Though I would do "temp" rather than
> "sensor".
>
> Also, "-42.4" is fine.
>
Ok, I'll use "jedec,jc-42.4-temp".
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/jc42.txt | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/jc42.txt
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/jc42.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/jc42.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..2bd604a93430
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/jc42.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
>> +Properties for Jedec JC-42.4 compatible temperature sensors
>> +
>> +Required properties:
>> +- compatible: May include a device-specific string consisting of the
>> + manufacturer and the name of the chip. A list of supported
>> + chip names follows.
>> + Must include "jedec,jc-42-4" for any Jedec JC-42.4 compatible
>> + temperature sensor.
>> +
>> + Supported chip names:
>> + adt7408
>> + at30ts00
>> + at30tse004
>> + cat6095
>> + cat34ts02
>> + max6604
>> + mcp9804
>> + mcp9805
>> + mcp9808
>> + mcp98243
>> + mcp98244
>> + mcp9843
>> + se97
>> + se98
>> + stts2002
>> + stts2004
>> + stts3000
>> + stts424
>> + stts424e
>> + tse2002
>> + tse2004
>> + ts3000
>> + ts3001
>
> These are all vendor independent names?
>
No. se97/se98 would be NXP, for example. I'll add the vendor prefixes.
Thanks,
Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists