From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.internode.on.net (bld-mail07.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.71]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83675679E0 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:33:26 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] PowerMac11,2 i2c-bus@0 duplicate dev-tree workaround From: Michael Ellerman To: Johannes Berg In-Reply-To: <1143631816.9481.5.camel@localhost> References: <1143631816.9481.5.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 17:28:39 +1100 Message-Id: <1143700119.23392.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 13:30 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On a PowerMac11,2, there are two i2c-bus@0 nodes of which only the first > is correct. This patch makes the device tree unflattening code ignore > the second one on those machines. > > Signed-Off-By: Johannes Berg > > --- > I'm not sure this is the right way to do it. Maybe we should have some > 'dev-tree quirks fixer' that makes a third pass through the device tree > after the allnodes chain has been set up, and fixes it up. On the other > hand, as long as there aren't too many workarounds, this works fine. > > The patch looks longer than it is because some code changed indentation > level. I don't understand why we need this patch? If we care about getting the "right" node why not check for that where we care? cheers -- Michael Ellerman IBM OzLabs wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183) We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person