Re: Recommended notation for OPP to avoid DTC warnings

2017-04-09 Thread Viresh Kumar 
On 31-03-17, 11:59, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> 2017-02-27 19:55 GMT+09:00 Viresh Kumar :
> > 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@10 {
> >> > opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <10>;
> >> > opp-microvolt = <97 975000 985000>;
> >> > opp-microamp = <7>;
> >> > clock-latency-ns = <30>;
> >> > 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@10 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-10.
> >
> > That's fine with me. I can send a patch to fix all existing users if we all
> > agree for it.
> >
> > --
> > viresh
> 
> 
> Any progress on this?
> 
> Did we reach on agreement with s/@/-/  ?

We can follow this as no one else objected. I will send a patch for existing
entries and you can do it for the newer ones.

-- 
viresh

Re: Recommended notation for OPP to avoid DTC warnings

2017-04-09 Thread Viresh Kumar 
On 31-03-17, 11:59, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> 2017-02-27 19:55 GMT+09:00 Viresh Kumar :
> > 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@10 {
> >> > opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <10>;
> >> > opp-microvolt = <97 975000 985000>;
> >> > opp-microamp = <7>;
> >> > clock-latency-ns = <30>;
> >> > 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@10 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-10.
> >
> > That's fine with me. I can send a patch to fix all existing users if we all
> > agree for it.
> >
> > --
> > viresh
> 
> 
> Any progress on this?
> 
> Did we reach on agreement with s/@/-/  ?

We can follow this as no one else objected. I will send a patch for existing
entries and you can do it for the newer ones.

-- 
viresh

Re: Recommended notation for OPP to avoid DTC warnings

2017-03-30 Thread Masahiro Yamada 
Hi.

2017-02-27 19:55 GMT+09:00 Viresh Kumar :
> 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@10 {
>> > opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <10>;
>> > opp-microvolt = <97 975000 985000>;
>> > opp-microamp = <7>;
>> > clock-latency-ns = <30>;
>> > 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@10 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-10.
>
> That's fine with me. I can send a patch to fix all existing users if we all
> agree for it.
>
> --
> viresh


Any progress on this?

Did we reach on agreement with s/@/-/  ?


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

Re: Recommended notation for OPP to avoid DTC warnings

2017-03-30 Thread Masahiro Yamada 
Hi.

2017-02-27 19:55 GMT+09:00 Viresh Kumar :
> 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@10 {
>> > opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <10>;
>> > opp-microvolt = <97 975000 985000>;
>> > opp-microamp = <7>;
>> > clock-latency-ns = <30>;
>> > 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@10 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-10.
>
> That's fine with me. I can send a patch to fix all existing users if we all
> agree for it.
>
> --
> viresh


Any progress on this?

Did we reach on agreement with s/@/-/  ?


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

Re: Recommended notation for OPP to avoid DTC warnings

2017-02-27 Thread Viresh Kumar 
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@10 {
> > opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <10>;
> > opp-microvolt = <97 975000 985000>;
> > opp-microamp = <7>;
> > clock-latency-ns = <30>;
> > 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@10 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-10.

That's fine with me. I can send a patch to fix all existing users if we all
agree for it.

-- 
viresh

Re: Recommended notation for OPP to avoid DTC warnings

2017-02-27 Thread Viresh Kumar 
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@10 {
> > opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <10>;
> > opp-microvolt = <97 975000 985000>;
> > opp-microamp = <7>;
> > clock-latency-ns = <30>;
> > 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@10 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-10.

That's fine with me. I can send a patch to fix all existing users if we all
agree for it.

-- 
viresh

Re: Recommended notation for OPP to avoid DTC warnings

2017-02-27 Thread Masahiro Yamada 
2017-02-27 19:55 GMT+09:00 Viresh Kumar :
> 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@10 {
>> > opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <10>;
>> > opp-microvolt = <97 975000 985000>;
>> > opp-microamp = <7>;
>> > clock-latency-ns = <30>;
>> > 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@10 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-10.
>
> That's fine with me. I can send a patch to fix all existing users if we all
> agree for it.


OK with me.

Also, please remember to update the examples
in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt





-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

Re: Recommended notation for OPP to avoid DTC warnings

2017-02-27 Thread Masahiro Yamada 
2017-02-27 19:55 GMT+09:00 Viresh Kumar :
> 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@10 {
>> > opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <10>;
>> > opp-microvolt = <97 975000 985000>;
>> > opp-microamp = <7>;
>> > clock-latency-ns = <30>;
>> > 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@10 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-10.
>
> That's fine with me. I can send a patch to fix all existing users if we all
> agree for it.


OK with me.

Also, please remember to update the examples
in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt





-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

Re: Recommended notation for OPP to avoid DTC warnings

2017-02-27 Thread Mark Rutland 
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@10 {
> opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <10>;
> opp-microvolt = <97 975000 985000>;
> opp-microamp = <7>;
> clock-latency-ns = <30>;
> 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@10 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-10.

Thanks,
Mark.

Re: Recommended notation for OPP to avoid DTC warnings

2017-02-27 Thread Mark Rutland 
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@10 {
> opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <10>;
> opp-microvolt = <97 975000 985000>;
> opp-microamp = <7>;
> clock-latency-ns = <30>;
> 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@10 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-10.

Thanks,
Mark.

Re: Recommended notation for OPP to avoid DTC warnings

2017-02-26 Thread Viresh Kumar 
On 26-02-17, 14:18, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> 
> Decumentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt
> takes examples like this:
> 
> opp@10 {
> opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <10>;
> opp-microvolt = <97 975000 985000>;
> opp-microamp = <7>;
> clock-latency-ns = <30>;
> opp-suspend;
> };
> opp@11 {
> opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <11>;
> opp-microvolt = <98 100 101>;
> opp-microamp = <8>;
> clock-latency-ns = <31>;
> };
> opp@12 {
> opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <12>;
> opp-microvolt = <1025000>;
> clock-latency-ns = <29>;
> turbo-mode;
> };
> 
> 
> 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@10 has a
> unit name, but no reg property
> 
> 
> Is there a recommended notation to avoid it?
> 
> Maybe, simply omit the "@" ?

I would let Rob suggest something here.

-- 
viresh

Re: Recommended notation for OPP to avoid DTC warnings

2017-02-26 Thread Viresh Kumar 
On 26-02-17, 14:18, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> 
> Decumentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt
> takes examples like this:
> 
> opp@10 {
> opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <10>;
> opp-microvolt = <97 975000 985000>;
> opp-microamp = <7>;
> clock-latency-ns = <30>;
> opp-suspend;
> };
> opp@11 {
> opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <11>;
> opp-microvolt = <98 100 101>;
> opp-microamp = <8>;
> clock-latency-ns = <31>;
> };
> opp@12 {
> opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <12>;
> opp-microvolt = <1025000>;
> clock-latency-ns = <29>;
> turbo-mode;
> };
> 
> 
> 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@10 has a
> unit name, but no reg property
> 
> 
> Is there a recommended notation to avoid it?
> 
> Maybe, simply omit the "@" ?

I would let Rob suggest something here.

-- 
viresh

Recommended notation for OPP to avoid DTC warnings

2017-02-25 Thread Masahiro Yamada 
Hi.


Decumentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt
takes examples like this:

opp@10 {
opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <10>;
opp-microvolt = <97 975000 985000>;
opp-microamp = <7>;
clock-latency-ns = <30>;
opp-suspend;
};
opp@11 {
opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <11>;
opp-microvolt = <98 100 101>;
opp-microamp = <8>;
clock-latency-ns = <31>;
};
opp@12 {
opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <12>;
opp-microvolt = <1025000>;
clock-latency-ns = <29>;
turbo-mode;
};


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@10 has a
unit name, but no reg property


Is there a recommended notation to avoid it?

Maybe, simply omit the "@" ?



-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

Recommended notation for OPP to avoid DTC warnings

2017-02-25 Thread Masahiro Yamada 
Hi.


Decumentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt
takes examples like this:

opp@10 {
opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <10>;
opp-microvolt = <97 975000 985000>;
opp-microamp = <7>;
clock-latency-ns = <30>;
opp-suspend;
};
opp@11 {
opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <11>;
opp-microvolt = <98 100 101>;
opp-microamp = <8>;
clock-latency-ns = <31>;
};
opp@12 {
opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <12>;
opp-microvolt = <1025000>;
clock-latency-ns = <29>;
turbo-mode;
};


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@10 has a
unit name, but no reg property


Is there a recommended notation to avoid it?

Maybe, simply omit the "@" ?



-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada