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

[Simon Horman]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:27:26AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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.

Ok, lets just leave them as "regulator at 0" and "regulator at 1".
If better names emerge then we can use them.