Dear maintainer, I see a lot of Device trees 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 and why? 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