On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:27:26AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > 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. Ok, lets just leave them as "regulator@0" and "regulator@1". If better names emerge then we can use them. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
