From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 12:00:25 +0100 Subject: [lm-sensors] [PATCH v3 2/5] input: sun4i-ts: Add support for temperature sensor In-Reply-To: <52C84665.5070203@roeck-us.net> References: <1388506852-3548-1-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <1388506852-3548-3-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <52C84665.5070203@roeck-us.net> Message-ID: <20140106110025.GQ3144@lukather> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Guenter, On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 09:35:33AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 12/31/2013 08:20 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > >The sun4i resisitive touchscreen controller also comes with a built-in > >temperature sensor. This commit adds support for it. > > > >This commit also introduces a new "ts-attached" device-tree property, > >when this is not set, the input part of the driver won't register. This way > >the internal temperature sensor can be used to measure the SoC temperature > >independent of there actually being a touchscreen attached to the controller. > > > >Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede > > Couple of minor comments below, though no need to resubmit unless someone else has comments. > > Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck > > >--- > > .../bindings/input/touchscreen/sun4i.txt | 5 + > > drivers/input/touchscreen/sun4i-ts.c | 140 ++++++++++++++++----- > > 2 files changed, 114 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) > > > >diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/sun4i.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/sun4i.txt > >index e45927e..6bac67b 100644 > >--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/sun4i.txt > >+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/sun4i.txt > >@@ -6,10 +6,15 @@ Required properties: > > - reg: mmio address range of the chip > > - interrupts: interrupt to which the chip is connected > > > >+Optional properties: > >+ - allwinner,ts-attached: boolean indicating that an actual touchscreen is > >+ attached to the controller > >+ > Brr. While I understand that you were asked to do this, I don't > really see the benefit of another "allwinner" here. As if this > wasn't implied by the "compatible" property. It's actually the ePAPR that recommends this. Section 6.1.1, General Principles " Some recommended practices includes: [..] 5. If new properties are needed by the binding, the recommended format for property names is: ?,?, where is an OUI or short unique string like a stock ticker that identifies the creator of the binding. " Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: