[PATCH 05/22] ARM: dts: bcm281xx: Remove '0x's from BCM11351 BRT DTS file

Christian Daudt
2013-07-22T16:57:42Z

On 13-07-22 06:53 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 07/22/2013 03:38 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, Christian Daudt wrote:
>>
>>> On 13-07-22 03:52 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>> Cc: Christian Daudt <csd@broadcom.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm11351-brt.dts | 6 +++---
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm11351-brt.dts
>>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm11351-brt.dts
>>>> index 67ec524..fdace5d 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm11351-brt.dts
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm11351-brt.dts
>>>> @@ -27,18 +27,18 @@
>>>> status = "okay";
>>>> };
>>>> - sdio0: sdio at 0x3f180000 {
>>>> + sdio0: sdio at 3f180000 {
>>>> max-frequency = <48000000>;
>>>> status = "okay";
>>>> };
>>>> - sdio1: sdio at 0x3f190000 {
>>>> + sdio1: sdio at 3f190000 {
>>>> non-removable;
>>>> max-frequency = <48000000>;
>>>> status = "okay";
>>>> };
>>>> - sdio3: sdio at 0x3f1b0000 {
>>>> + sdio3: sdio at 3f1b0000 {
>>>> max-frequency = <48000000>;
>>>> status = "okay";
>>>> };
>>> Hi Lee,
>>> Is this convention documented ? Someone called my attention to the
>>> fact that this dts files was inconsistent in its use of 0x in names,
>>> but I was not aware of a coding guideline for this.
>>
>> The best two places I can think of are:
>>
>> Documentation/devicetree/usage-model.txt
>> and
>> http://www.devicetree.org/Device_Tree_Usage
>
> And even those do not stick to a single convention, but that is what
> can be expected of a twiki page :-p
[take 2 with in plain text]

Agreed. Quick search shows the following example on that page:
pci at 0x10180000 {
compatible = "arm,versatile-pci-hostbridge", "pci";
reg = <0x10180000 0x1000>;
interrupts = <8 0>;
bus-ranges = <0 0>;
};

though it is the minority in the examples, ultimately having more
examples following one convention than the other does not a standard
make :) While I like this just for the consistency, it'd be nice to have
something to point people to as this being the best practice for kernel
dev. It would be good to have a DeviceTreeGuidelines along the lines of
the CodingGuidelines file in the kernel tree itself, to get some
consistency on this.

Thanks,
csd