2023-06-04 12:29:47

by Paul Cercueil

Subject: [PATCH 4/4] MIPS: DTS: qi_lb60: Don't use unit address for regulators

The regulators don't have any "reg" property, and therefore shouldn't
use an unit address in their node names.

Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <[email protected]>
---
Cc: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
Cc: Conor Dooley <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
---
arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/qi_lb60.dts | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/qi_lb60.dts b/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/qi_lb60.dts
index ba0218971572..24f987244a12 100644
--- a/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/qi_lb60.dts
+++ b/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/qi_lb60.dts
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ chosen {
stdout-path = &uart0;
};

- vcc: regulator@0 {
+ vcc: regulator-0 {
compatible = "regulator-fixed";
regulator-name = "vcc";

@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ vcc: regulator@0 {
regulator-always-on;
};

- mmc_power: regulator@1 {
+ mmc_power: regulator-1 {
compatible = "regulator-fixed";
regulator-name = "mmc_vcc";
gpio = <&gpd 2 0>;
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ mmc_power: regulator@1 {
regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>;
};

- amp_supply: regulator@2 {
+ amp_supply: regulator-2 {
compatible = "regulator-fixed";
regulator-name = "amp_supply";
gpio = <&gpd 4 0>;
--
2.39.2

2023-06-09 08:33:59

by Thomas Bogendoerfer

Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] MIPS: DTS: qi_lb60: Don't use unit address for regulators

On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 02:26:55PM +0200, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> The regulators don't have any "reg" property, and therefore shouldn't
> use an unit address in their node names.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <[email protected]>
> ---
> Cc: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
> Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> Cc: Conor Dooley <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> ---
> arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/qi_lb60.dts | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

applied to mips-next.

Thomas.

--
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]