[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170227105533.GA19417@vireshk-i7>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 16:25:33 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, masahiroy@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Recommended notation for OPP to avoid DTC warnings
On 27-02-17, 10:44, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 02:18:03PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> >
> > Decumentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt
> > takes examples like this:
> >
> > opp@...0000000 {
> > opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1000000000>;
> > opp-microvolt = <970000 975000 985000>;
> > opp-microamp = <70000>;
> > clock-latency-ns = <300000>;
> > opp-suspend;
> > };
>
> > If we follow this notation and the device-tree is built with W=1,
> > DTC warns like follows:
> >
> > Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /opp_table0/opp@...0000000 has a
> > unit name, but no reg property
> >
> > Is there a recommended notation to avoid it?
> >
> > Maybe, simply omit the "@" ?
>
> I think just s/@/-/ should be fine, e.g. call the above opp-1000000000.
That's fine with me. I can send a patch to fix all existing users if we all
agree for it.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists