Hi Rob
On 08/07/2018 04:08 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:55 AM <patrice.chotard@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> From: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@xxxxxx>
>>
>> Fix the following DT dtc warnings for stm32f429 and
>> stm32f469 boards:
>>
>> Warning (node_name_chars_strict): /soc/pin-controller/usbotg_fs@0: Character '_' not recommended in node name
>> Warning (node_name_chars_strict): /soc/pin-controller/usbotg_fs@1: Character '_' not recommended in node name
>> Warning (node_name_chars_strict): /soc/pin-controller/usbotg_hs@0: Character '_' not recommended in node name
>> Warning (node_name_chars_strict): /soc/pin-controller/sdio_pins@0: Character '_' not recommended in node name
>> Warning (node_name_chars_strict): /soc/pin-controller/sdio_pins_od@0: Character '_' not recommended in node name
>> Warning (node_name_chars_strict): /gpio_keys: Character '_' not recommended in node name
>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /memory: node has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name
>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller: node has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name
>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/usart1@0: node has a unit name, but no reg property
>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/usart3@0: node has a unit name, but no reg property
>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/usbotg_fs@0: node has a unit name, but no reg property
>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/usbotg_fs@1: node has a unit name, but no reg property
>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/usbotg_hs@0: node has a unit name, but no reg property
>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/mii@0: node has a unit name, but no reg property
>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/adc@200: node has a unit name, but no reg property
>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/pwm@1: node has a unit name, but no reg property
>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/pwm@3: node has a unit name, but no reg property
>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/i2c1@0: node has a unit name, but no reg property
>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/ltdc@0: node has a unit name, but no reg property
>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/dcmi@0: node has a unit name, but no reg property
>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/sdio_pins@0: node has a unit name, but no reg property
>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/sdio_pins_od@0: node has a unit name, but no reg property
>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /gpio_keys/button@0: node has a unit name, but no reg property
>> Warning (avoid_unnecessary_addr_size): /gpio_keys: unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells without "ranges" or child "reg" property
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@xxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Change since v1:
>> - update nodes name as following: <node_name>@0 to <node_name>-0
>>
>>
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32429i-eval.dts | 11 +++--
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f4-pinctrl.dtsi | 30 ++++++-------
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f429-disco.dts | 7 ++-
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f429-pinctrl.dtsi | 74 +++++++++++++++----------------
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f429.dtsi | 8 ++--
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f469-disco.dts | 11 +++--
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f469-pinctrl.dtsi | 76 +++++++++++++++-----------------
>> 7 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 115 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32429i-eval.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32429i-eval.dts
>> index 7eb786a2d624..116232b589e4 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32429i-eval.dts
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32429i-eval.dts
>> @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@
>> stdout-path = "serial0:115200n8";
>> };
>>
>> - memory {
>> + memory@0 {
>> reg = <0x00000000 0x2000000>;
>> };
>>
>> @@ -111,17 +111,16 @@
>> };
>> };
>>
>> - gpio_keys {
>> + gpio-keys {
>> compatible = "gpio-keys";
>> - #address-cells = <1>;
>> #size-cells = <0>;
>
> Think you forgot this line.
You are right, i will remove it
>
>> autorepeat;
>> - button@0 {
>> + button-0 {
>> label = "Wake up";
>> linux,code = <KEY_WAKEUP>;
>> gpios = <&gpioa 0 0>;
>> };
>> - button@1 {
>> + button-1 {
>> label = "Tamper";
>> linux,code = <KEY_RESTART>;
>> gpios = <&gpioc 13 0>;
>> @@ -145,7 +144,7 @@
>> };
>> };
>>
>> - mmc_vcard: mmc_vcard {
>> + mmc_vcard: mmc-vcard {
>> compatible = "regulator-fixed";
>> regulator-name = "mmc_vcard";
>> regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>;
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f4-pinctrl.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f4-pinctrl.dtsi
>> index 35202896c093..244c7ab8c76d 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f4-pinctrl.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f4-pinctrl.dtsi
>> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@
>>
>> / {
>> soc {
>> - pinctrl: pin-controller {
>> + pinctrl: pin-controller@40020000 {
>
> pinctrl is the documented node name, not pin-controller.
Okay
>
>> #address-cells = <1>;
>> #size-cells = <1>;
>> ranges = <0 0x40020000 0x3000>;
>> @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@
>> st,bank-name = "GPIOK";
>> };
>>
>> - usart1_pins_a: usart1@0 {
>> + usart1_pins_a: usart1-0 {
>
> What's wrong with just "usart1"?
>
> I think I would like to see "-pins" appended to the node names.
Our way of naming our node is <IP_name><instance>-<differentiator>
differentiator starts at 0, and is incremented if needed.
For example, if we want to add a sleep config, the node's name would be:
usart1_pins_sleep_a: usart1-1 { blablabla ...}
>
>> pins1 {
>> pinmux = <STM32_PINMUX('A', 9, AF7)>; /* USART1_TX */
>> bias-disable;
>> @@ -176,7 +176,7 @@
>> };
>> };
>>
>> - usart3_pins_a: usart3@0 {
>> + usart3_pins_a: usart3-0 {
>> pins1 {
>> pinmux = <STM32_PINMUX('B', 10, AF7)>; /* USART3_TX */
>> bias-disable;
>> @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@
>> };
>> };
>>
>> - usbotg_fs_pins_a: usbotg_fs@0 {
>> + usbotg_fs_pins_a: usbotg-fs-0 {
>> pins {
>> pinmux = <STM32_PINMUX('A', 10, AF10)>, /* OTG_FS_ID */
>> <STM32_PINMUX('A', 11, AF10)>, /* OTG_FS_DM */
>> @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@
>> };
>> };
>>
>> - usbotg_fs_pins_b: usbotg_fs@1 {
>> + usbotg_fs_pins_b: usbotg-fs-1 {
>> pins {
>> pinmux = <STM32_PINMUX('B', 12, AF12)>, /* OTG_HS_ID */
>> <STM32_PINMUX('B', 14, AF12)>, /* OTG_HS_DM */
>> @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@
>> };
>> };
>>
>> - usbotg_hs_pins_a: usbotg_hs@0 {
>> + usbotg_hs_pins_a: usbotg-hs-0 {
>> pins {
>> pinmux = <STM32_PINMUX('H', 4, AF10)>, /* OTG_HS_ULPI_NXT*/
>> <STM32_PINMUX('I', 11, AF10)>, /* OTG_HS_ULPI_DIR */
>> @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@
>> };
>> };
>>
>> - ethernet_mii: mii@0 {
>> + ethernet_mii: mii-0 {
>> pins {
>> pinmux = <STM32_PINMUX('G', 13, AF11)>, /* ETH_MII_TXD0_ETH_RMII_TXD0 */
>> <STM32_PINMUX('G', 14, AF11)>, /* ETH_MII_TXD1_ETH_RMII_TXD1 */
>> @@ -251,13 +251,13 @@
>> };
>> };
>>
>> - adc3_in8_pin: adc@200 {
>> + adc3_in8_pin: adc-0 {
>> pins {
>> pinmux = <STM32_PINMUX('F', 10, ANALOG)>;
>> };
>> };
>>
>> - pwm1_pins: pwm@1 {
>> + pwm1_pins: pwm-1 {
>
> You have a mixture of the number suffix being a pin mode # and block
> instance #. pwm1 or pwm1-pins?
Right, if we follow our rules, the node's name must be :
pwm1_pins: pwm1-0 { ....
Thanks
Patrice
>
> Similar comments on the rest.
>
> Rob
> ��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�{��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
