Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH RESEND] Documentation: devicetree: Clean up gpio-keys example | From | Julien Chauveau <> | Date | Tue, 8 Mar 2016 10:41:37 +0100 |
| |
> Le 8 mars 2016 à 09:54, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> a écrit : > > 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 { >> compatible = "gpio-keys"; >> - #address-cells = <1>; >> - #size-cells = <0>; >> autorepeat; >> 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 >
Hi Andreas, This means you can also drop the unit-address (the @21 part) for the button. What about using a more relevant name like "key_up" instead of "button"?
Julien
| |