Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: dt: t114 dalmore: add dt entry for nct1008

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On 08/08/2013 01:40 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/08/2013 02:36 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> On 08/08/2013 10:56 AM, Wei Ni wrote:
>>
>>> Enable thermal sensor nct1008 for t114 dalmore.
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Ni <wni@nvidia.com>
>>> ---
>>>    arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra114-dalmore.dts |   10 +++++++++-
>>>    1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra114-dalmore.dts
>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra114-dalmore.dts
>>> index b5a42f0..9d4d2b2 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra114-dalmore.dts
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra114-dalmore.dts
>>> @@ -738,6 +738,14 @@
>>>                realtek,ldo1-en-gpios =
>>>                    <&gpio TEGRA_GPIO(V, 3) GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>            };
>>> +
>>> +        nct1008 {
>>
>>     ePAPR [1] says: "the name of a node should be somewhat generic,
>> reflecting the function of the device and not its precise programming
>> model". So I suggest "thermal"
>
> True, although there's quite some precedent for node-names being the
> chip name for external chips in existing DTs. If we change this node
> name, I'd like to see a patch that makes all the other "nct1008" nodes
> match the new name...
>

On the other side, one should not use a bad example as an argument or excuse
to make the same mistake again (though I keep hearing it all the time ... ).
I for my part tend to use something like temp-sensor or temp-sensor@1c.
Advantage of that kind of node name is that it auto-describes the node.

Guenter