From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "embedded (VIVAVIS AG)" <embedded-dQ8pE230Wp9BDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Voltage and current regulator: usage of 'regulators' parent node in
 device tree
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 12:53:36 +0000
Message-ID: <809518e1649a469cb4fc6fffd9bf427c@vivavis.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Return-path: <devicetree-spec-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Content-Language: de-DE
List-ID: <devicetree-spec.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: "devicetree-spec-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" <devicetree-spec-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>

Dear maintainer,

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