From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from az33egw01.freescale.net (az33egw01.freescale.net [192.88.158.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "az33egw01.freescale.net", Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DE8EDEE5A for ; Sat, 12 Apr 2008 03:08:26 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <47FF9B01.7010207@freescale.com> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:08:17 -0500 From: Timur Tabi MIME-Version: 1.0 To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [POWERPC] UCC nodes cleanup References: <20080311171045.GB4684@localhost.localdomain> <82E8E38A-C159-4C23-BDE8-086D4429F366@kernel.crashing.org> <20080411160654.GA25506@polina.dev.rtsoft.ru> <47FF9665.7020403@freescale.com> <20080411170657.GA15270@polina.dev.rtsoft.ru> In-Reply-To: <20080411170657.GA15270@polina.dev.rtsoft.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Jeff Garzik , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Anton Vorontsov wrote: >> Do we want the first UCC to have a cell-index of 1? Maybe we should fix this >> off-by-one error once and for all, and number all UCCs from 0? > > Isn't documentation numbers UCC from 1? Yes. > Then I believe we should stick > with it for device tree, since off by one is Linux implementation details. Fair enough. -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale