Re: Recommended notation for OPP to avoid DTC warnings

[Viresh Kumar]

On 31-03-17, 11:59, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> 2017-02-27 19:55 GMT+09:00 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > 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@1000000000 {
> >> >                 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@1000000000 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
> 
> 
> Any progress on this?
> 
> Did we reach on agreement with s/@/-/  ?

We can follow this as no one else objected. I will send a patch for existing
entries and you can do it for the newer ones.

-- 
viresh