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

[Julien Chauveau]

> Le 8 mars 2016 Ã 09:54, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a Ãcrit :
> 
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Andreas FÃrber <afaerber@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Andreas FÃrber <afaerber@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> 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"?

Julien