On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 7:59 AM embedded (VIVAVIS AG)
<embedded@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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?
Yes and no. Yes, in the above case as there is no bus nor grouping of
fixed regulators. For a MFD that includes regulators, then a child
'regulators' node is appropriate. To put it another way, if you have a
schema defining a 'regulators' node, then it probably is appropriate.
> Is the given naming schema in fixed-regulator.yaml best practice to follow?
>
> reg_xyz: regulator-xyz {
> compatible = "regulator-fixed";
> regulator-name = "xyz";
Yes, pretty much.
Rob
