From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com (Martin Blumenstingl) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 21:56:09 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v3 1/2] Documentation: bindings: Introduce scpi, sensors-scale In-Reply-To: <57ff035a-b462-6f5d-0100-051e99e9a2b6@arm.com> References: <20170309101759.18081-1-carlo@caione.org> <20170309101759.18081-2-carlo@caione.org> <57ff035a-b462-6f5d-0100-051e99e9a2b6@arm.com> Message-ID: To: linus-amlogic@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linus-amlogic.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 09/03/17 10:17, Carlo Caione wrote: >> From: Carlo Caione >> >> Document the new property `scpi,sensors-scale` used by the hwmon-scpi >> driver to convert the sensor readings to the correct / expected scale. >> > > I am fine with DT bindings if DT maintainers agree with having one but I > would like to add couple of points to get their feedback: > > 1. ARM recognized the drawbacks of SCPI which started informally with > ARM Ltd platforms and got adopted by few vendors. It's now being > worked on and a much better and scalable replacement protocol is > being discussed with vendors now. So future enhancement to this SCPI > protocol is unlikely. > > 2. AmLogic has diverted from base protocol in many ways and most of them > are handled with just compatible so far without any need for > additional bindings. Can we avoid it ? > > So based on these, I prefer not to add more bindings to handle such > deviations but make it just AmLogic specific. could you please share your idea where this "Amlogic specific implementation" fits best? - in firmware/arm_scpi to keep a contract (for example: millicelsius) to everyone who reads a temperature sensor for example - or in hwmon/scpi-hwmon Regards, Martin