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

[afaerber@suse.de (Andreas Färber)]

Am 08.03.2016 um 10:41 schrieb Julien Chauveau:
> Le 8 mars 2016 ? 09:54, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> a ?crit :
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Andreas F?rber <afaerber@suse.de> 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@gmail.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas F?rber <afaerber@suse.de>
>>> ---
>>> 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 at 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 at 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"?

Or in my case power-key or power-button. Or would just power suffice?

The Landingship baseboard does have four more buttons not yet enabled,
so I do need some way to distinguish nodes.

Regards,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N?rnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imend?rffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG N?rnberg)