On 02.07.2020 09:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 08:16:11AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 08:27:01AM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote: >>> On 29.06.2020 22:59, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> Remove the regulators node entirely because its children do not have any >>>> unit addresses. This fixes DTC warning: >>>> >>>> Warning (simple_bus_reg): /regulators/regulator-0: missing or empty reg/ranges property >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> What about removing the regulators node from other boards: >>> exynos4412-origen.dts, exynos5420-smdk5420.dts and exynos5250-arndale.dts? >>> >>> On the other hand, maybe it would be really easier to add missing >>> address/size-cells properties to exynos4210-trats.dts/regulators node? >> Indeed let's keep it consistent so in such case better to add here >> proper address/size-cells. > Actually more of DTSes put fixed regulators directly in root node, not > under "regulators" node: > exynos3250-monk.dts > exynos4210-i9100.dts > exynos4210-origen.dts > exynos4210-universal_c210.dts > exynos4412-galaxy-s3.dtsi > exynos4412-midas.dtsi > exynos4412-n710x.dts > exynos4412-odroidx.dts > exynos5250-smdk5250.dts > exynos5250-snow-common.dtsi > exynos5420-peach-pit.dts > exynos5800-peach-pi.dts > > If we want it to be consistent, it's easier to remove the regulator > nodes from exynos4412-origen.dts, exynos5420-smdk5420.dts and > exynos5250-arndale.dts. Feel free, I'm fine with both approaches. Best regards -- Marek Szyprowski, PhD Samsung R&D Institute Poland
