Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] ARM: dts: stm32: Fix DT dtc warnings for stm32f4

From: Rob Herring
Date: Tue Aug 07 2018 - 10:09:15 EST

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:55 AM <patrice.chotard@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@xxxxxx>
>
> Fix the following DT dtc warnings for stm32f429 and
> stm32f469 boards:
>
> Warning (node_name_chars_strict): /soc/pin-controller/usbotg_fs@0: Character '_' not recommended in node name
> Warning (node_name_chars_strict): /soc/pin-controller/usbotg_fs@1: Character '_' not recommended in node name
> Warning (node_name_chars_strict): /soc/pin-controller/usbotg_hs@0: Character '_' not recommended in node name
> Warning (node_name_chars_strict): /soc/pin-controller/sdio_pins@0: Character '_' not recommended in node name
> Warning (node_name_chars_strict): /soc/pin-controller/sdio_pins_od@0: Character '_' not recommended in node name
> Warning (node_name_chars_strict): /gpio_keys: Character '_' not recommended in node name
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /memory: node has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller: node has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/usart1@0: node has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/usart3@0: node has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/usbotg_fs@0: node has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/usbotg_fs@1: node has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/usbotg_hs@0: node has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/mii@0: node has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/adc@200: node has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/pwm@1: node has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/pwm@3: node has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/i2c1@0: node has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/ltdc@0: node has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/dcmi@0: node has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/sdio_pins@0: node has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/pin-controller/sdio_pins_od@0: node has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /gpio_keys/button@0: node has a unit name, but no reg property
> Warning (avoid_unnecessary_addr_size): /gpio_keys: unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells without "ranges" or child "reg" property
>
> Signed-off-by: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@xxxxxx>
> ---
> Change since v1:
> - update nodes name as following: <node_name>@0 to <node_name>-0
>
>
> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32429i-eval.dts | 11 +++--
> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f4-pinctrl.dtsi | 30 ++++++-------
> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f429-disco.dts | 7 ++-
> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f429-pinctrl.dtsi | 74 +++++++++++++++----------------
> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f429.dtsi | 8 ++--
> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f469-disco.dts | 11 +++--
> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f469-pinctrl.dtsi | 76 +++++++++++++++-----------------
> 7 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 115 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32429i-eval.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32429i-eval.dts
> index 7eb786a2d624..116232b589e4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32429i-eval.dts
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32429i-eval.dts
> @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@
> stdout-path = "serial0:115200n8";
> };
>
> - memory {
> + memory@0 {
> reg = <0x00000000 0x2000000>;
> };
>
> @@ -111,17 +111,16 @@
> };
> };
>
> - gpio_keys {
> + gpio-keys {
> compatible = "gpio-keys";
> - #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;

Think you forgot this line.

> autorepeat;
> - button@0 {
> + button-0 {
> label = "Wake up";
> linux,code = <KEY_WAKEUP>;
> gpios = <&gpioa 0 0>;
> };
> - button@1 {
> + button-1 {
> label = "Tamper";
> linux,code = <KEY_RESTART>;
> gpios = <&gpioc 13 0>;
> @@ -145,7 +144,7 @@
> };
> };
>
> - mmc_vcard: mmc_vcard {
> + mmc_vcard: mmc-vcard {
> compatible = "regulator-fixed";
> regulator-name = "mmc_vcard";
> regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>;
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f4-pinctrl.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f4-pinctrl.dtsi
> index 35202896c093..244c7ab8c76d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f4-pinctrl.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f4-pinctrl.dtsi
> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@
>
> / {
> soc {
> - pinctrl: pin-controller {
> + pinctrl: pin-controller@40020000 {

pinctrl is the documented node name, not pin-controller.

> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <1>;
> ranges = <0 0x40020000 0x3000>;
> @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@
> st,bank-name = "GPIOK";
> };
>
> - usart1_pins_a: usart1@0 {
> + usart1_pins_a: usart1-0 {

What's wrong with just "usart1"?

I think I would like to see "-pins" appended to the node names.

> pins1 {
> pinmux = <STM32_PINMUX('A', 9, AF7)>; /* USART1_TX */
> bias-disable;
> @@ -176,7 +176,7 @@
> };
> };
>
> - usart3_pins_a: usart3@0 {
> + usart3_pins_a: usart3-0 {
> pins1 {
> pinmux = <STM32_PINMUX('B', 10, AF7)>; /* USART3_TX */
> bias-disable;
> @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@
> };
> };
>
> - usbotg_fs_pins_a: usbotg_fs@0 {
> + usbotg_fs_pins_a: usbotg-fs-0 {
> pins {
> pinmux = <STM32_PINMUX('A', 10, AF10)>, /* OTG_FS_ID */
> <STM32_PINMUX('A', 11, AF10)>, /* OTG_FS_DM */
> @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@
> };
> };
>
> - usbotg_fs_pins_b: usbotg_fs@1 {
> + usbotg_fs_pins_b: usbotg-fs-1 {
> pins {
> pinmux = <STM32_PINMUX('B', 12, AF12)>, /* OTG_HS_ID */
> <STM32_PINMUX('B', 14, AF12)>, /* OTG_HS_DM */
> @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@
> };
> };
>
> - usbotg_hs_pins_a: usbotg_hs@0 {
> + usbotg_hs_pins_a: usbotg-hs-0 {
> pins {
> pinmux = <STM32_PINMUX('H', 4, AF10)>, /* OTG_HS_ULPI_NXT*/
> <STM32_PINMUX('I', 11, AF10)>, /* OTG_HS_ULPI_DIR */
> @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@
> };
> };
>
> - ethernet_mii: mii@0 {
> + ethernet_mii: mii-0 {
> pins {
> pinmux = <STM32_PINMUX('G', 13, AF11)>, /* ETH_MII_TXD0_ETH_RMII_TXD0 */
> <STM32_PINMUX('G', 14, AF11)>, /* ETH_MII_TXD1_ETH_RMII_TXD1 */
> @@ -251,13 +251,13 @@
> };
> };
>
> - adc3_in8_pin: adc@200 {
> + adc3_in8_pin: adc-0 {
> pins {
> pinmux = <STM32_PINMUX('F', 10, ANALOG)>;
> };
> };
>
> - pwm1_pins: pwm@1 {
> + pwm1_pins: pwm-1 {

You have a mixture of the number suffix being a pin mode # and block
instance #. pwm1 or pwm1-pins?

Similar comments on the rest.

Rob