On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 17:02:51 +0100
Jonathan Cameron [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, 31 May 2021 10:03:23 -0400
"Liam Beguin" [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Peter,

On Mon May 31, 2021 at 3:32 AM EDT, Peter Rosin wrote:  

quoted

Hi!

On 2021-05-30 02:59, Liam Beguin wrote:    

quoted

From: Liam Beguin <redacted>

An ADC is often used to measure other quantities indirectly. This
binding describe one cases, the measurement of a temperature through a
voltage sense amplifier such as the LTC2997.

Signed-off-by: Liam Beguin <redacted>    

What's the significant difference between this and the RTD binding? Does
not both simply scale/offset a voltage to a temperature?  

I'm lost: what RTD binding?

Ignore this email - I was reading the series backwards and thought we were
talking about a preexisting binding.

quoted

quoted

The way I looked at it was one binding per sensor type (resistance
driven, current driven, and voltage driven).

Thinking about it more, these three bindings could be factorized into
one if the user is required to enter parameters "by hand".  

Don't. They are effectively different types of devices and we just end
up with a more complex binding if we try to cover them all.

Ignore that as well. If the bindings combine fairly easily it is nice
to do so, but be careful not to throw too many things in together and
make it very hard to write the binding. However, I'm not keen on entirely
generic bindings and would like the channel type at least to come from
the compatible.

There is an argument to go the other way and actually have bindings for
individual temperature sensors like the LTC2997.  Then the parameters
become a driver problem rather than one for the binding.

Jonathan

quoted

These could become something like:
- sense-gain-mult
- sense-gain-div
- sense-offset

I like the idea of having the "datasheet parameters" in the devicetree,
but this would be a lot more versatile.

What do you think?

Cheers,
Liam
  

quoted

Cheers,
Peter