On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 08:55:16PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 9/5/25 8:46 PM, Conor Dooley wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > > +examples:
> > > + - |
> > > + i2c {
> > > + #address-cells = <1>;
> > > + #size-cells = <0>;
> > > + gpio@45 {
> >
> > ngl, seems strange to classify the device as a regulator in directory
> > and name, but use gpio as the node name in the example.
> >
> > Otherwise, this seems fine - if you feel that the hardware is
> > substantively differentially to what's in the "v1" regulator then
> > keeping them apart is valid.
> > Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I can rename it to "mcu@" or "mfd@" some such ?
Sure.
>
> I originally thought it could be compatible with the V1, which is why I
> tried to conflate them into single binding in 6d09c6e474bd ("regulator:
> dt-bindings: rpi-panel: Add regulator for 7" Raspberry Pi 720x1280") , but
> they are too different, so this undoes the change and creates separate
> binding.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
