Re: Please suggest proper format for DT properties.

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Tuesday 22 September 2015 08:08:25 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > I would strongly prefer Option 1 or 2 over option 3.
> > Between 1 and 2, I'd probably go for 1. Another option might
> > be to have a subnode per sensor:
> >
> > nct7802@2a {
> >          compatible = "nuvoton,nct7802";
> >          reg = <0x2a>;
> >       #address-cells=<1>;
> >       #size-cells=<0>;
> >
> >       sensor@1 {
> >               compatible = "nuvoton,nct7802-thermistor";
> >               further-properties;
> >       };
> >       sensor@3 {
> >               compatible = "nuvoton,nct7802-voltage";
> >               for-example-range-mv = <0 5000>;
> >       };
> > };
> >
> I personally would prefer this approach. It would also make it easier to add more
> properties. Wonder what is more appropriate, though - a compatible property or
> something like the following ?
>                 sensor-type = "xxx";
> 
> I don't have a preference, just asking.

I'm not sure here, either way would work, and we are not particularly
consistent in this regard. Maybe someone else has a stronger preference.

> Also, would the index be derived from "@1", or should there be a reg property ?

There needs to be a 'reg' property. Sorry for missing that above.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/