[PATCH v2] dt-bindings: trivial-devices: add onnn,adt7462

[Conor Dooley]

On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 10:39:20PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 9/23/24 21:17, Chanh Nguyen wrote:
> > On 24/09/2024 04:23, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 09:38:00AM +0000, Chanh Nguyen wrote:
> > > > The adt7462 supports monitoring and controlling up to
> > > > four PWM Fan drive outputs and eight TACH inputs measures.
> > > > The adt7462 supports reading a single on chip temperature
> > > > sensor and three remote temperature sensors. There are up
> > > > to 13 voltage monitoring inputs.
> > > > 
> > > > Add device tree bindings for the adt7462 device.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Chanh Nguyen <chanh at os.amperecomputing.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > Change in v2:
> > > >     - Add onnn,adt7462 to the list of trivial devices       [Guenter]
> > > 
> > > Is this really a trivial device? If it monitors and controls fans, how
> > > come those do not need to be represented in the devicetree? How is it
> > > possible to tell the difference between monitoring 1 and 4 fans without
> > > the extra detail?
> > > 
> > 
> > Hi Conor, Thank you for your comments!
> > 
> > The chip is old. The driver was added back in 2008.
> > 
> > Really, this is such an old chip that it would make more sense to just leave its driver alone unless there is a problem with it; this is viewpoint from Guenter.
> > 
> > I'm using the driver and the device tree with only the "compatible" and "reg" properties; now it's being good for me without any extra detail.
> > 
> > Guenter, Rob, Krzysztof, and I discussed making the decision to add this device to the list of trivial devices. You can get more information at thread https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240918220553.GA2216504-robh@kernel.org/T/ (Because the commit title changed between v1 and v2, it's so hard for everyone to find it. Sorry! I missed mentioning the link to pacth v1).
> > 
> > Guenter, who supported the driver development before, he suggested me add this device to the list of trivial devices.
> > 
> 
> Historically it was ok to add an entry into trivial devices and extending
> it later if/when needed. That was still widely done at least until very
> recently. Maybe that changed recently. If so, sorry for bringing up the idea.
> I did not envision that this might be a problem.
> 
> Can you live with no devicetree entry at all for the chip ? That is of
> course less than perfect, but it seems better than trying to design a
> devicetree description for the chip only to never implement it.

Since it sounds like Krzysztof assented to it, I'll just leave it for
him to ack.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/openbmc/attachments/20240924/e33e5f7a/attachment-0001.sig>