From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com (e31.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.149]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e31.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 489C1DDED4 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 23:36:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m63DaZCV027794 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 09:36:35 -0400 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.0) with ESMTP id m63DaZlR173864 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:36:35 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m63DaYqa004262 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:36:35 -0600 Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 09:33:13 -0400 From: Josh Boyer To: Stefan Roese Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: add of_find_next_property andof_get_aliased_index Message-ID: <20080703093313.478e6773@zod.rchland.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <200806262041.12275.sr@denx.de> 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 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, 26 Jun 2008 20:41:12 +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. :) > > I could easily just have used this existing "index" property for the other 4xx > boards, but expected NAK's for this. That and because FSL uses "cell-index" > is why I asked prior to sending patches. > > Now I have no idea how to support I2C on the other 4xx boards. Perhaps Josh > could advise how this should be done? As David said elsewhere, cell-index is fine for figuring out how to access the CPM registers, etc. But it's not good for enumerating across the whole system. For I2C specifically, I think Sean already has a patch to switch the 4xx driver to not use the numbered functions, which eliminates the need for the enumeration all together. That seems like the right approach to me. josh