From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:30:31 +1000 From: David Gibson To: Stefan Roese Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: add of_find_next_property andof_get_aliased_index Message-ID: <20080627013031.GA17621@yookeroo.seuss> References: <1214424332-18496-1-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com> <4863BBE2.2060107@freescale.com> <20080626142732.0ff6e64c@lappy.seanm.ca> <200806262041.12275.sr@denx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200806262041.12275.sr@denx.de> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Timur Tabi , Sean MacLennan List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 08:41:12PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote: > On Thursday 26 June 2008, Sean MacLennan wrote: > > > Well, there's a lot of disagreement on this subject. Not only do we > > > not agree on a method of enumerating devices, a lot of people have a > > > problem with the concept of enumerating them in the first place! > > > > An interesting point is that I enforced an index in the i2c-ibm_iic > > driver with no disagreement at all ;) > > You have been lucky I suppose. :) Ah... that's because IIC does have a correct reason to have cell-index - like most of the 4xx devices, we may need the index for programming the CPM power control retisters - and we didn't notice you were also using for the incorrect purpose of supplying an index to the i2c layer. Please note that cell-index *does* *not* *work* for the global index if there are multiple SoC-like units in the system. For its correct purpose of indexing the CPM registers, cell-index must be local to the SoC, for the global index it must not. -- 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