linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] Documentation: devicetree: Clean up gpio-keys example

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:08:49 +0100
From:	Julien Chauveau <chauveau.julien@...il.com>
To:	Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>
Cc:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	"linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-rockchip <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
	LAKML <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] Documentation: devicetree: Clean up gpio-keys example


> Le 8 mars 2016 à 11:16, Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de> a écrit :
> 
> Am 08.03.2016 um 10:41 schrieb Julien Chauveau:
>> Le 8 mars 2016 à 09:54, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> a écrit :
>>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de> wrote:
>>>> Drop #address-cells and #size-cells, which are not required by the
>>>> gpio-keys binding documentation, as button sub-nodes are not devices.
>>>> 
>>>> Reported-by: Julien Chauveau <chauveau.julien@...il.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>
>>>> ---
>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-keys.txt | 2 --
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>>> 
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-keys.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-keys.txt
>>>> index 21641236c095..1552a11f6786 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-keys.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-keys.txt
>>>> @@ -34,8 +34,6 @@ Example nodes:
>>>> 
>>>>       gpio_keys {
>>>>                       compatible = "gpio-keys";
>>>> -                       #address-cells = <1>;
>>>> -                       #size-cells = <0>;
>>>>                       autorepeat;
>>>>                       button@21 {
>>> 
>>> FYI, with "[PATCH] scripts/dtc: Update to upstream version 53bf130b1cdd":
>>> (http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg117206.html) applied:
>>> 
>>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /keyboard/button@21 has a unit
>>> name, but no reg property
>>> 
>> 
>> Hi Andreas,
>> This means you can also drop the unit-address (the @21 part) for the button.
>> What about using a more relevant name like "key_up" instead of "button"?
> 
> Or in my case power-key or power-button. Or would just power suffice?

For the example nodes of the documentation, according to the labels you’ll probably want to use "up" and "down" (or "key-up" and "key-down", or "up-key" and "down-key").

For the Geekbox, I think "power" is meaningful enough.

> 
> The Landingship baseboard does have four more buttons not yet enabled,
> so I do need some way to distinguish nodes.

The labels on the board are key1, key2, key3 and key4. Maybe you can use that?