Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH RESEND] Documentation: devicetree: Clean up gpio-keys example | From | Julien Chauveau <> | Date | Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:08:56 +0100 |
| |
> Le 8 mars 2016 à 11:09, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> a écrit : > > Am 08.03.2016 um 09:54 schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven: >> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote: >>> Drop #address-cells and #size-cells, which are not required by the >>> gpio-keys binding documentation, as button sub-nodes are not devices. >>> >>> Reported-by: Julien Chauveau <chauveau.julien@gmail.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> >>> --- >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-keys.txt | 2 -- >>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-keys.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-keys.txt >>> index 21641236c095..1552a11f6786 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-keys.txt >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-keys.txt >>> @@ -34,8 +34,6 @@ Example nodes: >>> >>> gpio_keys { > > While at it, I was told the preferred node naming would be dashes, not > underscores. The deeper we dig, the more we find.
I agree, here we should use dashes, not underscores. So "gpio-keys" instead of "gpio_keys".
> >>> compatible = "gpio-keys"; >>> - #address-cells = <1>; >>> - #size-cells = <0>; >>> autorepeat; > > Also a white line here may be optically more pleasant.
I agree.
> >>> button@21 { >> >> FYI, with "[PATCH] scripts/dtc: Update to upstream version 53bf130b1cdd": >> (http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg117206.html) applied: >> >> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /keyboard/button@21 has a unit >> name, but no reg property > > My v2 GeekBox patch did have *-cells and a reg property, but Julien > asked I drop that: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8246481/ > > Are you suggesting we should add a reg property here and drop this patch > or go with this patch but follow up to not use @21?
I may be wrong but I think that if the unit-address has no meaning and is not used, then it should be removed.
By the way, I think the warning message is wrong. It should be _address_ instead of name: "Node has a unit address, but no reg property".
Julien
| |