On 9/5/25 9:03 PM, Conor Dooley wrote:
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 ?
I called it a regulator@ and sent a V2. I didn't include the AB, please
give it a once-over and provide one if still applicable.
Thanks !
