From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nishanth Menon Subject: Re: [RFC] OMAP DT i2c aliases Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 11:19:46 -0500 Message-ID: <538CA422.8000504@ti.com> References: <538B3877.70304@gmail.com> <538C9B62.9090404@ti.com> <538CA04C.1070509@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.40]:52019 "EHLO arroyo.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753880AbaFBQTx (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2014 12:19:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <538CA04C.1070509@gmail.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Ivaylo Dimitrov Cc: "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , =?UTF-8?B?UGFsaSBSb2jDoXI=?= , Pavel Machek , sre@kernel.org On Mon 02 Jun 2014 11:03:24 AM CDT, Ivaylo Dimitrov wrote: [...] >>> 0,1 and 2. I've already send a patch https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/1/49 >>> that will allow me to fix that from board .dts, but I was wondering if >>> it is the correct way, or ids should be changed in omap3.dtsi for all >>> omap devices. >> >> Should'nt we retain 0,1,2 as indexing to make this consistent for all >> SoCs? >> >> > > I think this is the most sane thing, esp if the "alias replace" patch > gets accepted(thus allowing us to workaround the problems on N900 and > N9/50), however I wanted to hear from you on the matter. Esp that > indexing is different with legacy boot compared to DT boot. I think that slipped my check list unfortunately. :( But then, if we think that it is just n900 that is impacted, then I wonder if we can override the alias? just wondering.. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon