Hello Krzysztof,
Patch looks good to me, I have just one question below:
On 04/01/2016 02:57 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Fix following DTC warnings in all Exynos5250 boards:
>
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /dp-controller@145B0000/display-timings/timing@0 has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /usb@12000000 has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /usb@12000000/dwc3 has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /hdmi has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /mixer has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /video-phy@10040720 has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /fixed-regulator@0 has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /fixed-regulator@1 has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /fixed-regulator@2 has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /i2c@12C70000/trackpad has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /i2c@12CD0000/lvds-bridge@20/ports/port@0 has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /i2c@12CD0000/lvds-bridge@20/ports/port@1 has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /i2c-arbitrator/i2c@0/embedded-controller has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /i2c-arbitrator/i2c@0/power-regulator has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /i2c@12CA0000/embedded-controller has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
[snip]
>
> - usb@12000000 {
> + usb_dwc3 {
> compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-dwusb3";
> clocks = <&clock CLK_USB3>;
> clock-names = "usbdrd30";
The ePAPR document says that "The name of a node should be somewhat generic,
reflecting the function of the device and not its precise programming model"
So I wonder if this shouldn't be instead:
usb_dwc3: usb {
Although it seems that not all DT bindings follow this convention so probably
the name in your patch is correct.
Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
