Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: thermal: sophgo,cv1800-thermal: Add Sophgo CV1800 thermal
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski
Date: Tue Jul 02 2024 - 11:09:55 EST
On 02/07/2024 17:00, Conor Dooley wrote:
> Rob/Krzysztof, Haylen,
>> +
>> +maintainers:
>> + - Haylen Chu <heylenay@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> +
>> +description: Binding for Sophgo CV1800 on-SoC thermal sensor
Drop "Binding"
>> +
>> +properties:
>> + compatible:
>> + enum:
>> + - sophgo,cv1800-thermal
>> +
>> + reg:
>> + maxItems: 1
>> +
>> + clocks:
>> + description: The thermal sensor clock
>> +
>> + interrupts:
>> + maxItems: 1
>> +
>> + accumulation-period:
>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
>> + description: Accumulation period for a sample
>> + enum:
>> + - 512
>> + - 1024
>> + - 2048
>> + - 4096
>> + default: 2048
>> +
>> + chop-period:
period in what sort of units? Sounds like time to me, so this would
require proper unit suffix.
>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
>> + description: ADC chop period
>> + enum:
>> + - 128
>> + - 256
>> + - 512
>> + - 1024
>> + default: 1024
>> +
>> + sample-cycle-us:
>
> the more common term btw would be "sample-rate" rather than
> "sample-cycle".
yeah, sample-rate-hz
>
>> + description: Period between samples. Should be greater than 524us.
>
> The constraint here should be "minimum: 524". What's the upper limit?
>
>> + default: 1000000
>
> Rob/Krzysztof, could you comment on the suitability of the three custom
> properties here? I know if this was an IIO device, these kinds of things
> would be controllable from userspace, and not in the binding. I
> mentioned this on the previous version, but I'm not really sure if
> thermal devices are somehow different:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/SEYPR01MB4221A739D0645EF0255336EBD7CE2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
Why would different boards have different values here? Does it affect
accuracy? If so, how much?
I doubt there are any boards with different values, thus it sounds like
unnecessary tuning parameter.
Best regards,
Krzysztof