On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:32 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Laurent, > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:12 AM Laurent Pinchart > <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 09:48:01AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > Currently there are two nodes named "regulator1" in the Draak DTS: a > > > 3.3V regulator for the eMMC and the LVDS decoder, and a 12V regulator > > > for the backlight. This causes the former to be overwritten by the > > > latter. > > > > > > Fix this by renaming all regulators with numerical suffixes to use named > > > suffixes, which are less likely to conflict. > > > > Aren't DT node names supposed to describe the device type, not a > > particular instance of the device ? This is something that has bothered > > me too, but I believe the naming scheme should be decided globally, not > > per board. Is there precedent for using this scheme that has been > > explicitly approved by the DT maintainers ? > > The example in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.yaml > uses "regulator@0", which of course works only if #address-cells = 1, which > is usually not the case for discrete regulators. > BTW, the example lacks a "reg" property... Yeah, that predates our being strict about unit-addresses. > So some other suffix has to be added to distinguish individual "regulator" > nodes. <nodename>-<identifier> is basically the format we've been following for cases without an address. As long as we have a consistent base name that we can match schema with, then I'm happy. But for regulators, we have a lot of node names like 'buck1', 'LDO2', etc. Rob
