Am Sonntag, 17. April 2022, 19:45:52 CEST schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> On 16/04/2022 14:07, Peter Geis wrote:
>
> >>> + dc_12v: dc-12v {
> >>
> >> Generic node name, so "regulator" or "regulator-0"
> >
> > Unfortunately, this advice breaks the regulator-fixed driver, which it
> > seems cannot cope with a bunch of nodes all named "regulator".
>
> What exactly cannot cope? You cannot have different device nodes with
> the same name but this is not a limitation of regulator but devicetree spec.
>
> > Setting the regulators as regulator-0 -1 -2 leads to fun issues where
> > the regulator numbering in the kernel doesn't match the node numbers.
>
> There are no "node numbers"... maybe you mean unit addresses? But there
> are none here.
>
> > It also makes it more fun when additional regulators need to be added
> > and everything gets shuffled around.
>
> Usually adding - in subsequent DTS files - means increasing the numbers
> so if you have regulator-[012] then just use regulator-[345] in other
> files. I see potential mess when you combine several DTSI files, each
> defining regulators, so in such case "some-name-regulator" (or reversed)
> is also popular approach.
so going with
dc_12v: dc-12v-regulator {
};
i.e. doing a some-name-regulator would be an in-spec way to go?
In this case I would definitely prefer this over doing a numbered thing.
I.e. regulator-0 can create really hard to debug issues, when you have
another accidential regulator-0 for a different regulator in there, which
then would create some sort of merged node.
Heiko
>
> > If naming these uniquely to avoid confusion and collisions is such an
> > issue, why is it not caught by make W=1 dtbs_check?
>
> Patches are welcome. :)
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
