Hello Mark, On 07/20/2015 12:12 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > 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. > Any opinions on this? thanks a lot and 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
