I'd really appreciate it, if you can give me feedback on my question.
Thank you.
> 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
