From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shawn Guo Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: ls1088a: add one more thermal zone node Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 22:49:09 +0800 Message-ID: <20190320144907.GC8337@dragon> References: <20190304032111.21770-1-andy.tang@nxp.com> <20190304062115.GB26041@dragon> <20190320081853.GE4980@dragon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Tang Cc: Daniel Lezcano , "mark.rutland@arm.com" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Leo Li , "edubezval@gmail.com" , "robh+dt@kernel.org" , "rui.zhang@intel.com" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 08:44:18AM +0000, Andy Tang wrote: > > > Sensor ID placement > > > 1 DDR controller 1 > > > 2 DDR controller 2 > > > 3 DDR controller 3 > > > 4 core cluster 1 > > > 5 core cluster 2 > > > 6 core cluster 3 > > > 7 core cluster 4 > > > > > > Apparently using CPU or CPU-cluster is not appropriate. Core-cluster is better. > > > > So using CPU is appropriate for me, less confusing, more consistent with other > > platforms. > What about core cluster? We can't name it cpu0, cpu1 etc I think. Hmm, yes, that would be even more confusing. What about cpu-thermal-1, cpu-thermal-2 ...? Shawn