From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758062AbbIVPRU (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:17:20 -0400
Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:65001 "EHLO
	mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753352AbbIVPRT (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:17:19 -0400
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: Constantine Shulyupin <const@makelinux.com>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
        Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: Please suggest proper format for DT properties.
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:17:05 +0200
Message-ID: <2276160.jkVDCt4RhG@wuerfel>
User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.16.0-10-generic; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <56016EE9.1010302@roeck-us.net>
References: <1442615803-17766-1-git-send-email-const@MakeLinux.com> <3914149.k3sqApaTEz@wuerfel> <56016EE9.1010302@roeck-us.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:gMI44NjhjVHuYr5HZH+JcP3h7AK1css53XjU4loxDJzJtRS20J9
 LhyuYuVAByzhFcLTZCmDVxinCbceijKKf6GKlxxu5B5MvHhD1pe3JAiohoDCA0EuQTWOvOx
 nluIg5cONti7flolaybXTbb1n+qvX7pk1VoLex5jv1HtW8PX5Oq/IO2KR4G09r+8aY/tDDx
 k92p5hvnKzK7DnNLRha2g==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:BJDP2+/+PWk=:0p8FHEjupQTQj+Z4KP4l7h
 aHpou0Wie/UBiGjGC4vPM4Py7kSo6Pb+GFE9b234nZkpMDUG/A9dDYyJ/PANuNY+6snG5dbiR
 rkGIT//XFYR39TObhFJvn00qi2kMpVN3zUsd8NsgloZUJTbcmHiu4VvAuQBSU5OYhQB/mg/YB
 ZBCKLitsITl9OEMl05A7GbNcVDabihE8WJKmevPngi8LwoqAO4NGSbXpgD8/9Cn7+JnyurTsV
 gZWQnQb/hBBRugIGXUgbMUJzJ8D0CfM7C1jn3ppQd1f+leY3mI0q0hGSrSARcttrrZhM3PG7+
 /VjBY3bbF/BhR2qryxYzYyQBrD3jNAVw8++l5YLzH3INh0FiiZRGOWzE3znxVhT445u0bxrhu
 qF3KO5LA9TlubtLAdzmlay67sh3ZQ4LMolp6vsApnix2Bw+Ku2ruHrn52rQebk093YhRSMysb
 0gdl/4GoELsGJ5bLPiDzFhnv0E9HttsJKqwbwc3THMPUrrxOqHPe1Rktd5mmhE8uJjZVhfy8e
 BU63kGcmRyv+Ob97fbXPE4kFDrD0RKSA+iJUdgIIoIXFcVdN4gVfJfixgR43hTPEjbe1Y+Ywc
 tma140IjNIZIVOYN/8SWG7J63tPbou2XvqP+c7Sh3QNQFJIrp3SZZD2i9poeLni/qflPeXSaz
 iJD0yHm4afXLJyXGjGVz+nlDVzZlqq8DwNpR/yrT6nyQDGFVPdGEo5KB/xtL+Uj9Er6CUxkKA
 XRS+Sv64ednsO3l2
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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