regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious regulator base addresses)

[Mark Brown]

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 at kernel.org> 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 at 0" and "regulator at 1"?

I don't care what they're called so long as things work; the DT people
are the ones to ask though.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140924/e49d3b74/attachment.sig>