* Voltage and current regulator: usage of 'regulators' parent node in device tree
@ 2021-07-07 13:09 embedded (VIVAVIS AG)
2021-07-07 15:29 ` Mark Brown
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: embedded (VIVAVIS AG) @ 2021-07-07 13:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: broonie
I see a lot of Devicetrees wrapping the regulator nodes within a parent node
like this
regulators {
compatible = "simple-bus";
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
reg_p3v3: regulator@0 {
compatible = "regulator-fixed";
[...]
regulator-always-on;
};
[...]
Contrary to that, patches exist removing the 'regulators' node, because the 'simple-bus'
doesn't really exist in hardware. Unfortunately, the documentation is unclear about
wrapping regulator nodes like shown above.
Should I avoid the parent 'regulators' node?
Is the given naming schema in fixed-regulator.yaml best practice to follow?
reg_xyz: regulator-xyz {
compatible = "regulator-fixed";
regulator-name = "xyz";
Thank you for clarification.
Carsten Stelling
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Voltage and current regulator: usage of 'regulators' parent node in device tree
2021-07-07 13:09 Voltage and current regulator: usage of 'regulators' parent node in device tree embedded (VIVAVIS AG)
@ 2021-07-07 15:29 ` Mark Brown
2021-07-07 16:08 ` AW: " embedded (VIVAVIS AG)
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2021-07-07 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: embedded (VIVAVIS AG); +Cc: linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 284 bytes --]
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 01:09:25PM +0000, embedded (VIVAVIS AG) wrote:
> Should I avoid the parent 'regulators' node?
You should ask the DT maintainers, I don't really mind either way TBH.
My understanding was to avoid the parent node but can't remember why or
if it was important.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* AW: Voltage and current regulator: usage of 'regulators' parent node in device tree
2021-07-07 15:29 ` Mark Brown
@ 2021-07-07 16:08 ` embedded (VIVAVIS AG)
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: embedded (VIVAVIS AG) @ 2021-07-07 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown; +Cc: linux-kernel
Hi Mark,
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 05:30:00PM +0200, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Should I avoid the parent 'regulators' node?
>
> You should ask the DT maintainers, I don't really mind either way TBH.
> My understanding was to avoid the parent node but can't remember why or
> if it was important.
Thank you.
Carsten
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-07-07 16:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-07-07 13:09 Voltage and current regulator: usage of 'regulators' parent node in device tree embedded (VIVAVIS AG)
2021-07-07 15:29 ` Mark Brown
2021-07-07 16:08 ` AW: " embedded (VIVAVIS AG)
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).