AW: Voltage and current regulator: usage of 'regulators' parent node in device tree

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



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




[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photos]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]

  Powered by Linux