On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:02:23AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > What should we call the nodes? > "regulator0" and "regulator1"? > "regulator1v8" and "regulator3v3"? > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt doesn't mention > node names or (presence/lack of) unit-adresses, but the examples do have > unit-addresses. > Is this another case where we don't follow the "no reg, no unit-address" > ePAPR rule? As far as the regulator API is concerned the node name is completly immaterial and all this stuff is just verbiage we're forced to include. As far as I can tell the requirement that node names be in the form "regulator" or whatever is just another thing that wasn't terribly well thought through in ePAPR, they were trying to do classes I think.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
