On 25/04/2022 11:22, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
>>> + /* TPS22918DBVR */
>>> + compatible = "regulator-fixed";
>>> + regulator-name = "vdd_mmc1";
>>> + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>;
>>> + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>;
>>> + regulator-boot-on;
>>> + enable-active-high;
>>> + vin-supply = <&vcc_3v3_sys>;
>>> + gpio = <&exp1 3 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>> + };
>>> +
>>> + vdd_sd_dv: gpio-regulator-TLV71033 {
>>
>> The same + do not mix cases, so regulator-1 or regulator-tlv71033
>
> I have fixed this in v3. But had one question though:
>
> Per DT spec, 2.2.3 Path Names seems to indicate node-name-N when N is
> 1,2,3.. So, is it valid to have regulator-tlv71033 as node-name -> does
> not strictly seem to fit into node-name-N format ?
No, "regulator-tlv71033" does not match DT spec. Indeed better to have
some generic suffix, e.g. regulator-vbatt, but strictly speaking DT spec
asks for just "regulator-[0-9]".
However several people prefer such descriptive suffix instead of
"regulator-[0-9]" because it makes their life easier when extending DTSI
(when both DTSI and DTS provide some of such regulators). Therefore I
don't think it's that important to keep with the spec. Rob for example
does not complain here, so probably I am stricter than him.
In any case it would be good to have only suffix or only prefix, e.g.
"regulator-foo-bar" or "foo-bar-regulator", so DT schema can match
against it. Several other types of devices already require such naming.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
