On 26/04/22 12:32 am, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 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.
>
Understood, thanks for the clarification!
Regards
Vignesh
