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 37645DDF92 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 14:19:20 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: "cell-index" vs. "index" vs. no index in I2C device nodes From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Timur Tabi In-Reply-To: <4848028B.5060105@freescale.com> References: <200806041706.21557.sr@denx.de> <4846B39F.3010601@freescale.com> <20080604154351.GB10393@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> <20080604211942.2bddc860@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <4848028B.5060105@freescale.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:19:04 +1000 Message-Id: <1212725944.12464.18.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Scott Wood , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Stefan Roese 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 10:13 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > Josh Boyer wrote: > > > From a device tree perspective, index and cell-index are both > > incorrect. The IIC macros don't share register blocks with anything, > > are enumerated as unique instances per macro in the device tree, and > > should be able to be distinguished by "regs" and/or unit address. > > I think we should just expand the definition of cell-index to include standard > device enumeration for when it's needed. The original definition is too > limited, IMHO. No. I disagree. Expanding the definition is the wrong thing to do, and as I pointed out in an earlier mail, will not work well with SMP or multi-chip setups. Ben.