On 08/09/2013 05:33 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:

On 08/08/2013 01:40 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:

quoted

On 08/08/2013 02:36 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:

quoted

Hello.

On 08/08/2013 10:56 AM, Wei Ni wrote:

quoted

Enable thermal sensor nct1008 for t114 dalmore.

quoted

Signed-off-by: Wei Ni <redacted>
---
   arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra114-dalmore.dts |   10 +++++++++-
   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

quoted

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 at 1c.
Advantage of that kind of node name is that it auto-describes the node.

Ok, so I will set the node name as "temp-sensor"
And I will send out patches to change all other "nct1008" nodes.

Guenter