[PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: thermal: sophgo,cv1800-thermal: Add Sophgo CV1800 thermal

[Inochi Amaoto]

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 08:05:10AM GMT, Chen Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2024/7/16 23:48, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 08:43:19PM +0800, Chen Wang wrote:
> > > On 2024/7/16 17:42, Haylen Chu wrote:
> > > > Add devicetree binding documentation for thermal sensors integrated in
> > > > Sophgo CV180X SoCs.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Haylen Chu <heylenay at outlook.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >    .../thermal/sophgo,cv1800-thermal.yaml        | 55 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > I see sometimes you call it cv1800, and in patch 3, the file name is
> > > cv180x_thermal.c, and for dts changes, you changed cv18xx.dtsi. Please unify
> > > it.
> > > 
> > > I think sg200x is new name for cv181x serias, so if you want to cover
> > > cv180x/sg200x, is cv18xx better?
> > > 
> > > >    1 file changed, 55 insertions(+)
> > > >    create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/sophgo,cv1800-thermal.yaml
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/sophgo,cv1800-thermal.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/sophgo,cv1800-thermal.yaml
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..58bd4432cd10
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/sophgo,cv1800-thermal.yaml
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
> > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > > > +%YAML 1.2
> > > > +---
> > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/thermal/sophgo,cv1800-thermal.yaml#
> > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > > > +
> > > > +title: Sophgo CV1800 on-SoC Thermal Sensor
> > > > +
> > > > +maintainers:
> > > > +  - Haylen Chu <heylenay at outlook.com>
> > > > +
> > > > +description: Sophgo CV1800 on-SoC thermal sensor
> > > > +
> > > > +properties:
> > > > +  compatible:
> > > > +    enum:
> > > > +      - sophgo,cv1800-thermal
> > > cv18xx-thermal ?
> > Please, no wildcards in compatibles :/
> 
> Sorry for my confusion.
> 
> Haylen, so you want a compatible that matches an actual SoC and use it
> everywhere?
> 

This should depend. If this peripheral is SoC specific, it is OK
for using SoC specific compatible. Otherwise, it should be series
specific.

For thermal sensors, I suggest using series-based compatible name
as this peripheral is the same across the whole series IIRC.

> Or we can add ones for each SoC and have a fallback to cv1800.

SoC specific compatible means most of the SoC have different part
for this peripheral. For safety, it may not use the fallback 
generic compatible.

Regards,
Inochi