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 0045ADDFAE for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 14:23:00 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: "cell-index" vs. "index" vs. no index in I2C device nodes From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Stefan Roese In-Reply-To: <200806051045.42966.sr@denx.de> References: <200806041706.21557.sr@denx.de> <200806050822.00797.sr@denx.de> <20080605094852.164f0bc7@hyperion.delvare> <200806051045.42966.sr@denx.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:17:37 +1000 Message-Id: <1212725857.12464.16.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Jean Delvare , Scott Wood , Sean MacLennan , Timur Tabi , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org 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 10:45 +0200, Stefan Roese wrote: > Full ack from me. So I suggest to use "cell-index" if available and > otherwise > use an incremented number, same as the FSL i2c driver does now: > > http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2008-June/057254.html > > If nobody objects I'll send a patch to add the cell-index to all 4xx > dts files > in a short while. No, don't use cell-index. If you have a setup with 2 SOCs in SMP or something like the Axon bridge on cell where you can have multiple Axons in a system, cell-index will not be unique. They will give you the index -within-a-chip- as it is used, as I said in a separate mail, for things like power or clock control bits & pieces. It will not be system-wide unique. Ben.