Hi Laurent,
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:12 AM Laurent Pinchart
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 09:48:01AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Currently there are two nodes named "regulator1" in the Draak DTS: a
> > 3.3V regulator for the eMMC and the LVDS decoder, and a 12V regulator
> > for the backlight. This causes the former to be overwritten by the
> > latter.
> >
> > Fix this by renaming all regulators with numerical suffixes to use named
> > suffixes, which are less likely to conflict.
>
> Aren't DT node names supposed to describe the device type, not a
> particular instance of the device ? This is something that has bothered
> me too, but I believe the naming scheme should be decided globally, not
> per board. Is there precedent for using this scheme that has been
> explicitly approved by the DT maintainers ?
The example in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.yaml
uses "regulator@0", which of course works only if #address-cells = 1, which
is usually not the case for discrete regulators.
BTW, the example lacks a "reg" property...
So some other suffix has to be added to distinguish individual "regulator"
nodes.
The example in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/fixed-regulator.yaml
uses "regulator-1v8" since commit b735f41dcb06ae06 ("dt-bindings: regulator:
update fixed-regulator example"), which received a Reviewed-by from Rob
after it was committed.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cal_jsq+rryazoqtjnms0ctk0hpkxckmz4jxolm7zapivate...@mail.gmail.com/
Looks good enough to me ;-)
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
