Voltage and current regulator: usage of 'regulators' parent node in device tree
I see a lot of Device trees wrapping the regulator nodes within a parent node like this
regulators {
compatible = "simple-bus";
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
reg_p3v3: regulator@0 {
compatible = "regulator-fixed";
[...]
regulator-always-on;
};
[...]Contrary to that, patches exist removing the 'regulators' node, because the 'simple-bus' doesn't really exist in hardware. Unfortunately, the documentation is unclear about wrapping regulator nodes like shown above.
Should I avoid the parent 'regulators' node and why?
Is the given naming schema in fixed-regulator.yaml best practice to follow?
reg_xyz: regulator-xyz {
compatible = "regulator-fixed";
regulator-name = "xyz";Thank you for clarification.
Carsten Stelling
Hi,
Quoted 22 lines
I see a lot of Device trees wrapping the regulator nodes within a parent node like this
regulators { compatible = "simple-bus"; #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; reg_p3v3: regulator@0 { compatible = "regulator-fixed"; [...] regulator-always-on; }; [...]Contrary to that, patches exist removing the 'regulators' node, because the 'simple-bus' doesn't really exist in hardware. Unfortunately, the documentation is unclear about wrapping regulator nodes like shown above.
Should I avoid the parent 'regulators' node and why?
Is the given naming schema in
fixed-regulator.yamlbest practice to follow?
Quoted 7 lines
reg_xyz: regulator-xyz { compatible = "regulator-fixed"; regulator-name = "xyz";Thank you for clarification.
Carsten Stelling
Possibly, the wrong list or recipients?
Any thoughts on this topic?
Thank you for your help.
Carsten