From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bbn0102.outbound.protection.outlook.com [157.56.111.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11E0A1A078B for ; Sat, 18 Jul 2015 03:07:19 +1000 (AEST) Message-ID: <1437152821.2993.191.camel@freescale.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH][v2] powerpc/fsl-booke: Add T1040D4RDB/T1042D4RDB board support From: Scott Wood To: Jain Priyanka-B32167 CC: "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:07:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: <1436952655-14910-1-git-send-email-Priyanka.Jain@freescale.com> <1436982433.2993.81.camel@freescale.com> <1437075349.2993.105.camel@freescale.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2015-07-17 at 01:17 -0500, Jain Priyanka-B32167 wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wood Scott-B07421 > > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 1:06 AM > > To: Jain Priyanka-B32167 > > Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org > > Subject: Re: [PATCH][v2] powerpc/fsl-booke: Add T1040D4RDB/T1042D4RDB > > board support > > > > > > + i2c@118100{ > > > > + mux@77{ > > > > + compatible = "nxp,pca9546"; > > > > + reg = <0x77>; > > > > + #address-cells = <1>; > > > > + #size-cells = <0>; > > > > + }; > > > > + }; > > > > > > A mux with no nodes under it (and yet it has #address-cells/#size- > > > cells)? > > > What is it multiplexing? > > > [Priyanka]: PCA9546 is i2c mux device , to which other i2c devices > > > (up-to 8 > > > ) can be further connected on output channels On T104xD4RDB, channel > > > 0, 1, 3 line are connected to PEX device, Channel 2 to hdmi interface > > > (initialization is done in u-boot only), other channels are grounded. > > > So, as such Linux is not using the second level I2C devices connected > > > on this MUX device. So, I have not shown next level hierarchy. > > > Should I replace 'mux' with some other name? . Please suggest. > > > > The device tree describes the hardware, not just what Linux uses... but > > what > > I don't understand is why you describe the mux at all if you're not going > > to > > describe what goes underneath it. > > > [Jain Priyanka-B32167] : Is below looks OK? > i2c@118100{ > + i2c@77{ > + compatible = "nxp,pca9546"; > + reg = <0x77>; > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <0>; > + }; > + }; Where in my above comment did it appear that I was complaining about the node name? -Scott