On 03/17/2016 10:03 AM, Rob Herring wrote:

On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 01:51:58PM -0600, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:

quoted

Now that the node name has been changed from ehrpwm to pwm the document
should show this proper usage. Also change the unit address in the example
from 0 to the proper physical address value that should be used.

Signed-off-by: Franklin S Cooper Jr <redacted>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiehrpwm.txt | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiehrpwm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiehrpwm.txt
index 9c100b2..20211ed 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiehrpwm.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiehrpwm.txt

@@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ Optional properties:
 
 Example:
 
-ehrpwm0: ehrpwm@0 { /* EHRPWM on am33xx */
+ehrpwm0: pwm@48300200 { /* EHRPWM on am33xx */
 	compatible = "ti,am33xx-ehrpwm";
 	#pwm-cells = <3>;
 	reg = <0x48300200 0x100>;
 	ti,hwmods = "ehrpwm0";
 };
 
-ehrpwm0: ehrpwm@0 { /* EHRPWM on da850 */
+ehrpwm0: pwm@01f00000 { /* EHRPWM on da850 */

No leading 0s, but more importantly the address is wrong.

I will remove the leading 0. However, this value was taken
from the .dtsi and I just double checked and I see the same
value in the datasheet. I believe DA850,OMAP-L138 and AM18x
all have the same memory mapping. I'm looking at
http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/am1808.pdf page 233 and the
addresses match up what is seen here and in the .dtsi.

Can you point me to which document your looking at that
shows a different value?

quoted

 	compatible = "ti,da850-ehrpwm", "ti,am33xx-ehrpwm";
 	#pwm-cells = <3>;
 	reg = <0x300000 0x2000>;
-- 
2.7.0