On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 10:05:42AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Provide generic bindings for all Jedec JC-42.4 compatible temperature
> sensor chips.
>
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net>
> ---
> RFC to address:
> - Is "jc-42-4" ok to use for JC-42.4 ?
> - JC42.4 really specifies an SPD EEPROM with included temperature sensor.
That would be at a different address?
> Is "jedec,jc42-4" appropriate, or should it rather be something like
> "jedec,jc-42-4-sensor" ?
If yes, then probably the latter. Though I would do "temp" rather than
"sensor".
Also, "-42.4" is fine.
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/jc42.txt | 42
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/jc42.txt
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/jc42.txt
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/jc42.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..2bd604a93430
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/jc42.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
> +Properties for Jedec JC-42.4 compatible temperature sensors
> +
> +Required properties:
> +- compatible: May include a device-specific string consisting of the
> + manufacturer and the name of the chip. A list of supported
> + chip names follows.
> + Must include "jedec,jc-42-4" for any Jedec JC-42.4 compatible
> + temperature sensor.
> +
> + Supported chip names:
> + adt7408
> + at30ts00
> + at30tse004
> + cat6095
> + cat34ts02
> + max6604
> + mcp9804
> + mcp9805
> + mcp9808
> + mcp98243
> + mcp98244
> + mcp9843
> + se97
> + se98
> + stts2002
> + stts2004
> + stts3000
> + stts424
> + stts424e
> + tse2002
> + tse2004
> + ts3000
> + ts3001
These are all vendor independent names?
> +
> +- reg: I2C address
> +
> +Example:
> +
> +temp-sensor@1a {
> + compatible = "jedec,jc-42-4";
> + reg = <0x18>;
> +};
> --
> 2.5.0
>
