From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: viresh.kumar@linaro.org (Viresh Kumar) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 16:25:33 +0530 Subject: Recommended notation for OPP to avoid DTC warnings In-Reply-To: <20170227104445.GE6795@leverpostej> References: <20170227104445.GE6795@leverpostej> Message-ID: <20170227105533.GA19417@vireshk-i7> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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 at 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 at 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