RE: [PATCH 1/9] regulator: Update DA9121 dt-bindings

[Adam Ward]

> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 02:47:42PM +0100, Vincent Whitchurch wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 01:14:50PM +0100, Adam Ward wrote:
> Actually, perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't quite see why this
> move to a sub-node is needed.  There is some flexibility in the
> regulator framework for this as I noted earlier
> (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201102154848.tm5nsydaukyd7rrw@xxxxxxxx/).
> For the case of an MFD it certainly makes sense to have a "regulators"
> sub-node but for these chips it seems rather redundant.

This sub-node looks fairly well instituted for devices with multiple regulators.
There's also the possibility to add GPIO support into another sub-node for all the variants.

Mark, do you have a preference?