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 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <[email protected]>
---
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 {
label = "GPIO Key UP";
--
2.6.2
Hello Andreas,
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Andreas Färber <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <[email protected]>
Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <[email protected]>
Best regards,
Javier
Hi,
Am 07.03.2016 um 19:34 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Andreas Färber <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <[email protected]>
>
> Looks good to me.
>
> Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <[email protected]>
Thanks. Quick summary for non-Rockchip reviewers:
This is a resend of: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8513851/
To avoid future resends: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8521501/
Rockchip arm64 cleanup: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8513951/
Patch prompting all this: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8513921/
Cheers,
Andreas
--
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Andreas Färber <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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
> label = "GPIO Key UP";
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
> Le 8 mars 2016 à 09:54, Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> a écrit :
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Andreas Färber <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> 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
Am 08.03.2016 um 09:54 schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Andreas Färber <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> 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.
>> compatible = "gpio-keys";
>> - #address-cells = <1>;
>> - #size-cells = <0>;
>> autorepeat;
Also a white line here may be optically more pleasant.
>> 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?
>
>> label = "GPIO Key UP";
Regards,
Andreas
--
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Am 08.03.2016 um 10:41 schrieb Julien Chauveau:
> Le 8 mars 2016 à 09:54, Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> a écrit :
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Andreas Färber <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> 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"?
Or in my case power-key or power-button. Or would just power suffice?
The Landingship baseboard does have four more buttons not yet enabled,
so I do need some way to distinguish nodes.
Regards,
Andreas
--
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
> Le 8 mars 2016 à 11:16, Andreas Färber <[email protected]> a écrit :
>
> Am 08.03.2016 um 10:41 schrieb Julien Chauveau:
>> Le 8 mars 2016 à 09:54, Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> a écrit :
>>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Andreas Färber <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> 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"?
>
> Or in my case power-key or power-button. Or would just power suffice?
For the example nodes of the documentation, according to the labels you’ll probably want to use "up" and "down" (or "key-up" and "key-down", or "up-key" and "down-key").
For the Geekbox, I think "power" is meaningful enough.
>
> The Landingship baseboard does have four more buttons not yet enabled,
> so I do need some way to distinguish nodes.
The labels on the board are key1, key2, key3 and key4. Maybe you can use that?
> Le 8 mars 2016 à 11:09, Andreas Färber <[email protected]> a écrit :
>
> Am 08.03.2016 um 09:54 schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven:
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Andreas Färber <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> 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