On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 9:09 AM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 08:47:38AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > 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. > > Those are all types of regulator (LDOs and DCDCs are the main types of > voltage regulator, and buck is another term for DCDC). Yes, I know. > I'm still not clear what meaningful effect any of this node name stuff > has :( It is primarily just what I said. Standard names or patterns allow for applying schemas. Otherwise, we only have schema checks when we have a device specific schema. Of course, we do have those too, but generic ones are useful when we don't. If there are errors in the DT causing the device specific schema to not match (say a typo in the compatible string), we still have some checking. Rob
