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. 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)? Best regards, Krzysztof
