On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:21:12AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > So perhaps we should just keep "regulator@0" and "regulator@1"? I don't care what they're called so long as things work; the DT people are the ones to ask though.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
