From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pawel Moll Subject: Re: [RFC] Serial port aliases in DT Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 18:34:55 +0000 Message-ID: <1395945295.7339.8.camel@hornet> References: <5448979.WQPtOb56tW@avalon> <20140327151829.GX17250@pengutronix.de> <4966076.uASvrV0Iy2@wuerfel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4966076.uASvrV0Iy2@wuerfel> Sender: devicetree-spec-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Sascha Hauer , Rob Herring , Laurent Pinchart , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , SH-Linux , Wolfram Sang , "devicetree-spec-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 18:26 +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > Many > > devicetrees specify aliases for i2c/spi/mmc controllers aswell. Should > > they order their i2c controllers in the order of preference now? > > > > Most dtsi files in the kernel specify a SoC specific order of aliases > > and I think this makes the most sense. > > I disagree with this one: the aliases should be a board specific > property, if not settable in the boot loader. This is how it traditionally > work on OF, and I think it's the most sensible approach for end users: > If the machine has multiple serial ports coming out the back, they are > normally numbered in some way, and the numbers should match what you > see in the OS, regardless of what the SoC calls them. I'm with you on this one, for what it's worth. Pawel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree-spec" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html