On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 7:21 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 17/04/2022 22:55, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> I don't think such case happens frequently, because all regulators are
> usually used by something (as a phandle) thus they should have a label.
> This label should be descriptive, so if one can assign same label to
> entirely different regulators, then the same chances are that same
> descriptive node will be used.
>
> IOW, if you think such mistake with regulator names can happen, then the
> same can happen with the label...
>
> Anyway, answering the question - "dc-12v-regulator" is still not
> matching exactly the Devicetree spec recommendation, but it's okay for
> me. :)
This seems like an excellent compromise, thanks!
>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
