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

[Umang Chheda]

Hello Krzysztof,

On 2/24/2026 12:25 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 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.


Ack, will change regulator node names as suggested above. Thanks for the feedback.

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

Thanks,
Umang