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

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:21:12AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Mark Brown [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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@0" and "regulator@1"?

I don't care what they're called so long as things work; the DT people
are the ones to ask though.