From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16A74DDF57 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 14:18:01 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: "cell-index" vs. "index" vs. no index in I2C device nodes From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Jean Delvare In-Reply-To: <20080605094852.164f0bc7@hyperion.delvare> References: <200806041706.21557.sr@denx.de> <20080604220555.658ab13e@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <20080604231641.786bb2dd@lappy.seanm.ca> <200806050822.00797.sr@denx.de> <20080605094852.164f0bc7@hyperion.delvare> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:16:23 +1000 Message-Id: <1212725783.12464.13.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Scott Wood , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Stefan Roese , Timur Tabi , Sean MacLennan Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 09:48 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > As far as I am concerned, it's really up to the maintainers and users > of this platform. All I am asking for is that you do not call > i2c_add_numbered_adapter() on an adapter with an automatically > generated number. This function must only be used for adapter's those > number is well defined. If an adapter doesn't have a well-defined > number then use i2c_add_adapter() (but then you can no longer declare > your I2C devices as part of the platform data.) Can't we just give those things -names- instead of numbers ? Ben.