[PATCH RESEND] Documentation: devicetree: Clean up gpio-keys example

[PATCH RESEND] Documentation: devicetree: Clean up gpio-keys example

[Andreas Färber]

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 {
 				label = "GPIO Key UP";
-- 
2.6.2

Re: [PATCH RESEND] Documentation: devicetree: Clean up gpio-keys example

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

Hello Andreas,

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:24 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>

Looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>

Best regards,
Javier

Re: [PATCH RESEND] Documentation: devicetree: Clean up gpio-keys example

[Andreas Färber]

Hi,

Am 07.03.2016 um 19:34 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:24 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>
> 
> Looks good to me.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>

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)

Re: [PATCH RESEND] Documentation: devicetree: Clean up gpio-keys example

[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 {
>                         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 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

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

Re: [PATCH RESEND] Documentation: devicetree: Clean up gpio-keys example

[Julien Chauveau]

> 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

Re: [PATCH RESEND] Documentation: devicetree: Clean up gpio-keys example

[Andreas Färber]

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.

>>                         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)

Re: [PATCH RESEND] Documentation: devicetree: Clean up gpio-keys example

[Andreas Färber]

Am 08.03.2016 um 10:41 schrieb Julien Chauveau:
> 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"?

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)

Re: [PATCH RESEND] Documentation: devicetree: Clean up gpio-keys example

[Julien Chauveau]

> Le 8 mars 2016 à 11:16, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> a écrit :
> 
> Am 08.03.2016 um 10:41 schrieb Julien Chauveau:
>> 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"?
> 
> 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?

Re: [PATCH RESEND] Documentation: devicetree: Clean up gpio-keys example

[Julien Chauveau]

> 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