From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.pikatech.com (dns.pikatech.com [207.107.229.10]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A3EDE4E6 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 07:37:49 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 17:37:16 -0400 From: Sean MacLennan To: "Stefan Roese" Subject: Re: "cell-index" vs. "index" vs. no index in I2C device nodes Message-ID: <20080605173716.3fd28837@wally.pikatech.com> In-Reply-To: <200806050822.00797.sr@denx.de> References: <200806041706.21557.sr@denx.de> <20080604220555.658ab13e@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <20080604231641.786bb2dd@lappy.seanm.ca> <200806050822.00797.sr@denx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Scott Wood , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Jean Delvare , Timur Tabi List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 08:22:00 +0200 "Stefan Roese" wrote: > So what should we do now? Currently I2C doesn't work at all on 4xx > since the driver expects the "index" property and no dts sets this > property. Personally I would like to move to using cell-index here, > since this seems to be more common. But I could also life with > removing the index property and using the "static index" if this is > preferred and/or acceptable. The warp DTS does ;) Cheers, Sean