Hello Lee, Thanks a lot for your feedback. On 07/20/2015 10:10 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > >> The regulator-compatible property from the regulator DT binding was >> deprecated. But the max77686 DT binding doc still suggest to use it >> instead of the regulator node name's which is the correct approach. >> >> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > By convention shouldn't this be buck@1, or something? > > Need Mark to look at this. > That's a very good question, the ePAPR doc says: "The unit-address must match the first address specified in the reg property of the node. If the node has no reg property, the @ and unit-address must be omitted and the node-name alone differentiates the node from other nodes at the same level in the tree" This PMIC uses a single I2C address for all the regulators and these are controlled by writing to different I2C register addresses. So the regulator nodes don't have a reg property in this case. By looking at other regulators bindings, besides the generic regulator.txt and fixed-regulator.txt DT bindings, there are only 5 (out of 40) that use the node-name@unit-address convention mentioned in the ePAPR document. AFAICT all these are for regulators that are actually in different addresses but I could be wrong so let's see what Mark says. Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America -- 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
