Re:[PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: chipcap2: Add label property

[Flaviu Nistor]

On 6/23/26 9:58 PM CET, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>On 6/23/26 11:16, Flaviu Nistor wrote:
>> On Mon Jun 22, 2026 at 7:29 PM CEST, Javier Carrasco wrote:
>>> On Mon Jun 22, 2026 at 2:21 PM CEST, Flaviu Nistor wrote:
>>>> Add support for an optional label property similar to other hwmon devices
>>>> This allows, in case of boards with multiple CHIPCAP2 sensors, to assign
>>>> distinct names to each instance.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Flaviu Nistor <flaviu.nistor@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>   .../devicetree/bindings/hwmon/amphenol,chipcap2.yaml         | 5 +++++
>>>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/amphenol,chipcap2.ya=
>>> ml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/amphenol,chipcap2.yaml
>>>> index 17351fdbefce..f00b5a4b14dd 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/amphenol,chipcap2.yaml
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/amphenol,chipcap2.yaml
>>>> @@ -33,6 +33,10 @@ properties:
>>>>     reg:
>>>>       maxItems: 1
>>>>
>>>> +  label:
>>>> +    description:
>>>> +      A descriptive name for this channel, like "ambient" or "psu".
>>>> +
>>>>     interrupts:
>>>>       items:
>>>>         - description: measurement ready indicator
>>>> @@ -72,6 +76,7 @@ examples:
>>>>                            <5 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
>>>>                            <6 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
>>>>               interrupt-names =3D "ready", "low", "high";
>>>> +            label =3D "somelabel";
>>>>               vdd-supply =3D <&reg_vdd>;
>>>>           };
>>>       };
>>>
>>> Hello Falviu, thank you for your patch.
>>>
>>
>> Hello Javier, thanks for your reply.
>>
>>> Should we not add a reference to hwmon-common.yaml (with
>>> unevelautedProperties instead of additionalProperties), as label is
>>> defined there? I believe that Krzysztof Kozlowski did something similar
>>> for the shunt-resistor-micro-ohms property. Could we follow suit here?
>>>
>>
>> This is a good question and I am happy you asked. I also thought a lot
>> about this and the reason I decided to go for this approach is that by using
>> $ref: hwmon-common.yaml#, I would have to change additionalProperties: false
>> to unevaluatedProperties: false, which will evaluate in case it is used, also
>> shunt-resistor-micro-ohms property which does not apply to this sensor. At
>> least this is my understanding, but of course I can be wrong (I see lm75 binding
>> also uses $ref: hwmon-common.yaml# but shunt-resistor-micro-ohms does not apply).
>>
>
>Where does the idea come from that shunt-resistor-micro-ohms would be mandatory ?
>That would make hwmon-common.yaml unusable for most chips.

I think this is a misunderstanding since I never had the intention to imply that
shunt-resistor-micro-ohms would be mandatory, but rather I observed that if I used
$ref: hwmon-common.yaml#, property shunt-resistor-micro-ohms can be added (no need to,
but still possible) in the example section and the dt_binding_check will pass.
Since hwmon-common.yaml is already there I will change the binding in a v2 and use it.

Best regards,
Flaviu