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

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 <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Andreas F?rber <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 at 21 {
 				label = "GPIO Key UP";

-- 
2.6.2

Hello Andreas,

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Andreas F?rber [off-list ref] 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 <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Andreas F?rber <afaerber@suse.de>

Looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <redacted>

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 F?rber [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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 <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Andreas F?rber <afaerber@suse.de>

Looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <redacted>

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 N?rnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imend?rffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG N?rnberg)

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Andreas F?rber [off-list ref] wrote:

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 at 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 at 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

Le 8 mars 2016 ? 09:54, Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] a ?crit :

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Andreas F?rber [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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 <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Andreas F?rber <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 at 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 at 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 F?rber [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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 <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Andreas F?rber <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.

quoted

                        compatible = "gpio-keys";
-                       #address-cells = <1>;
-                       #size-cells = <0>;
                        autorepeat;

Also a white line here may be optically more pleasant.

quoted

                        button at 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 at 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?

quoted

                                label = "GPIO Key UP";

Regards,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N?rnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imend?rffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG N?rnberg)

Am 08.03.2016 um 10:41 schrieb Julien Chauveau:

Le 8 mars 2016 ? 09:54, Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] a ?crit :

quoted

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Andreas F?rber [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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 <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Andreas F?rber <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 at 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 at 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 N?rnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imend?rffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG N?rnberg)

Le 8 mars 2016 ? 11:16, Andreas F?rber [off-list ref] a ?crit :

Am 08.03.2016 um 10:41 schrieb Julien Chauveau:

quoted

Le 8 mars 2016 ? 09:54, Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] a ?crit :

quoted

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Andreas F?rber [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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 <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Andreas F?rber <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 at 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 at 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 ? 11:09, Andreas F?rber [off-list ref] a ?crit :

Am 08.03.2016 um 09:54 schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven:

quoted

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Andreas F?rber [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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 <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Andreas F?rber <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".

quoted

quoted

                       compatible = "gpio-keys";
-                       #address-cells = <1>;
-                       #size-cells = <0>;
                       autorepeat;

Also a white line here may be optically more pleasant.

I agree.

quoted

quoted

                       button at 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 at 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