On 02.07.2020 09:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 08:16:11AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 08:27:01AM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:

quoted

On 29.06.2020 22:59, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

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@kernel.org>

Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>

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


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel