| Message ID | b31ca3ff50566c193003614d0bbf5e0a0e95901c.1528390418.git.leonard.crestez@nxp.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi Leonard, On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@nxp.com> wrote: > + > + isl29023@44 { According to Devicetree Specification v0.2 document: "The name of a node should be somewhat generic, reflecting the function of the device and not its precise programming model." So you could write: light-sensor@44 > + compatible = "isil,isl29023"; > + reg = <0x44>; > + interrupt-parent = <&gpio5>; > + interrupts = <17 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING>; > + }; > + > + mag3110@0e { No leading zero in unit address, please. Building with W=1 will give you warnings about it. magnetometer@e > + compatible = "fsl,mag3110"; > + reg = <0x0e>; > + interrupt-parent = <&gpio2>; > + interrupts = <29 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>; > + }; > + > + mma8451@1c { accelerometer@1c
On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 14:07 -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote: > Hi Leonard, > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@nxp.com> wrote: > > > + > > + isl29023@44 { > > According to Devicetree Specification v0.2 document: > > "The name of a node should be somewhat generic, reflecting the function > of the device and not its precise programming model." > > So you could write: > > light-sensor@44 Ok, will fix in v2. Should I also assign a label, like "isl29023: light-sensor@44"? I couldn't find any recommendation on this. There are no immediate uses for a label but this practice is very common. Having labels allows creating minor board variants with reduced churn in the base dts so it seems good. -- Regards, Leonard
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:17 AM, Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@nxp.com> wrote: > Should I also assign a label, like "isl29023: light-sensor@44"? I > couldn't find any recommendation on this. > > There are no immediate uses for a label but this practice is very > common. Having labels allows creating minor board variants with reduced > churn in the base dts so it seems good. In the case of this specific board we don't have board variants, so no need to add a label.
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl-sabreauto.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl-sabreauto.dtsi index 54b0139e978d..a6193240259d 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl-sabreauto.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl-sabreauto.dtsi @@ -160,10 +160,31 @@ compatible = "maxim,max7310"; reg = <0x34>; gpio-controller; #gpio-cells = <2>; }; + + isl29023@44 { + compatible = "isil,isl29023"; + reg = <0x44>; + interrupt-parent = <&gpio5>; + interrupts = <17 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING>; + }; + + mag3110@0e { + compatible = "fsl,mag3110"; + reg = <0x0e>; + interrupt-parent = <&gpio2>; + interrupts = <29 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>; + }; + + mma8451@1c { + compatible = "fsl,mma8451"; + reg = <0x1c>; + interrupt-parent = <&gpio6>; + interrupts = <31 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>; + }; }; }; }; &ipu1_csi0_from_ipu1_csi0_mux {
The following sensors are on I2C3 on the baseboard: * isil,isl29023 light sensor * fsl,mag3110 magnetometer * fsl,mma8451 accelerometer Added under i2cmux/i2c@1 because they're not otherwise accessible. These are all supported by iio with following configs: * CONFIG_SENSORS_ISL29018 * CONFIG_MAG3110 * CONFIG_MMA8452 Tested with raw reads from iio sysfs. Signed-off-by: Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@nxp.com> --- arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl-sabreauto.dtsi | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)