From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 08:46:24 +1000 From: David Gibson To: Timur Tabi Subject: Re: "cell-index" vs. "index" vs. no index in I2C device nodes Message-ID: <20080605224624.GD30980@yookeroo.seuss> References: <20080604231641.786bb2dd@lappy.seanm.ca> <200806050822.00797.sr@denx.de> <4848036D.5060004@freescale.com> <484809D1.2070300@scram.de> <48480B3C.9080101@freescale.com> <484811DE.9@freescale.com> <484812B9.3040300@scram.de> <48481705.9080107@freescale.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <48481705.9080107@freescale.com> Cc: Scott Wood , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Sean MacLennan , Jean Delvare , Stefan Roese List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 11:40:37AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > Grant Likely wrote: > > > 2) for i2c purposes, explicit enumeration is not needed or desired. > > All the necessary data is already present in the device tree in that > > i2c device nodes are children of i2c bus nodes. The i2c bus numbers > > should be dynamically assigned. > > NACK. For ASoC driver, they cannot be dynamically assigned. I2C1 must be > labeled as such. So use aliases, this is exactly what they're for. How many times do Grant and I have to say it? A fallback to cell-index and/or index is acceptable, for easier compatibility with existing trees, but aliases must be the primary method for assigning system-wide numbers. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson