Hi Krzysztof,
Le sam., juin 25 2022 at 21:58:08 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
On 24/06/2022 20:40, Paul Cercueil wrote:
Hi Krzysztof,
Le ven., juin 24 2022 at 19:07:39 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
gpio-keys children do not use unit addresses.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
See:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220616005224.18391-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx/
---
arch/mips/boot/dts/img/pistachio_marduk.dts | 4 +--
arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/gcw0.dts | 31
+++++++++----------
arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/rs90.dts | 18 +++++------
arch/mips/boot/dts/pic32/pic32mzda_sk.dts | 9 ++----
.../boot/dts/qca/ar9132_tl_wr1043nd_v1.dts | 6 ++--
arch/mips/boot/dts/qca/ar9331_dpt_module.dts | 4 +--
.../mips/boot/dts/qca/ar9331_dragino_ms14.dts | 6 ++--
arch/mips/boot/dts/qca/ar9331_omega.dts | 4 +--
.../qca/ar9331_openembed_som9331_board.dts | 4 +--
arch/mips/boot/dts/qca/ar9331_tl_mr3020.dts | 8 ++---
10 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/mips/boot/dts/img/pistachio_marduk.dts
b/arch/mips/boot/dts/img/pistachio_marduk.dts
index a8708783f04b..a8da2f992b1a 100644
--- a/arch/mips/boot/dts/img/pistachio_marduk.dts
+++ b/arch/mips/boot/dts/img/pistachio_marduk.dts
@@ -59,12 +59,12 @@ led-1 {
keys {
compatible = "gpio-keys";
- button@1 {
+ button-1 {
label = "Button 1";
linux,code = <0x101>; /* BTN_1 */
gpios = <&gpio3 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
};
- button@2 {
+ button-2 {
label = "Button 2";
linux,code = <0x102>; /* BTN_2 */
gpios = <&gpio2 14 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
diff --git a/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/gcw0.dts
b/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/gcw0.dts
index 4abb0318416c..5d33f26fd28c 100644
--- a/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/gcw0.dts
+++ b/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/gcw0.dts
@@ -130,89 +130,86 @@ backlight: backlight {
gpio-keys {
compatible = "gpio-keys";
- #address-cells = <1>;
- #size-cells = <0>;
Are you sure you can remove these?
Yes, from DT spec point of view, DT bindings and Linux implementation.
However this particular change was not tested, except building.
Looking at paragraph 2.3.5 of the DT spec, I would think they have
to
stay (although with #address-cells = <0>).
The paragraph 2.3.5 says nothing about regular properties (which can
be
also child nodes). It says about children of a bus, right? It's not
related here, it's not a bus.
I quote:
"A DTSpec-compliant boot program shall supply #address-cells and
#size-cells on all nodes that have children."
The gpio-keys node has children nodes, therefore it should have
#address-cells and #size-cells, there's no room for interpretation here.
Second, why exactly this one gpio-keys node is different than all
other
gpio-keys everywhere and than bindings? Why this one has to be
incompatible/wrong according to bindings (which do not allow
address-cells and nodes with unit addresses)?
Nothing is different. I'm just stating that your proposed fix is
invalid if we want to enforce compliance with the DT spec.
Cheers,
-Paul
