Re: [RFC PATCH] dt/bindings: Add bindings for JC-42.4 compatible temperature sensors

[Guenter Roeck]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > 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