Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] arm64: dts: qcom: monaco-evk: Add Interface Plus Mezzanine

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 24/02/2026 05:29, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The recommendation that has been communicated is to based label, name
>>> and regulator-name of the schematics, but prefix the node name with
>>> regulator- to achieve sensible sort order.
>>>
>>>
>>> In fact naming these regulator-0v9, regulator-1v8, and regulator-3v3
>>> make the name useless. We further have plenty of designs where there are
>>> multiple regulator-1v8 and regulator-3v3.
>>
>> The regulator-name is to match schematics. Node name should follow DT
>> spec expectations to show the purpose of the node.
>>
> 
> And "purpose" here means "it's a regulator providing 0.9V"?

The purpose is regulator, so I was in general in favor of
regulator-[0-9] with the number being index. The convention/schema asks
now for a more specific suffix, which still is just a suffix to
differentiate multiple nodes.

> 
>>>
>>> I guess the preferred name, per the binding, is to not have multiple
>>> 3.3V regulators in your design?
>>
>> I don't see what you are proving here. The "vreg" middle name addon is
>> not differentiating multiple 3.3V regulators.
>> It changes nothing in the problem of this duplication.
>>
> 
> I agree on the "vreg" part being redundant, but you're telling us that
> all fixed regulators should be named "regulator-[0-9]v[0-9]".

Yes, I am fine with some meaningful suffixes.

> 
> Are you saying that "regulator-edp-3p3", "regulator-misc-3p3", and
> "regulator-nvme" (examples from x1-crd.dtsi), should all be named

First, I would not change existing names just to match the convention.
Really not.

Second, this is not the case here. I talk about patch here. The patch
did not need additional suffixes but added the "vreg" useless
suffix/middlefix.

Third, if these are controllable regulators for a new source code, then
they should follow the convention with optional suffix. Whether the
suffix is numerical or name, I don't care.

> "regulator-3v3"? Or is your feedback limited to those regulators that
> are trivially named in the schematics?



Best regards,
Krzysztof