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 ?
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.
