From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from de01egw01.freescale.net (de01egw01.freescale.net [192.88.165.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E40C1DDF6E for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 01:24:25 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <4846B39F.3010601@freescale.com> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:24:15 -0500 From: Timur Tabi MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stefan Roese Subject: Re: "cell-index" vs. "index" vs. no index in I2C device nodes References: <200806041706.21557.sr@denx.de> In-Reply-To: <200806041706.21557.sr@denx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Stefan Roese wrote: > I'm wondering what is currently recommended in the I2C device tree nodes? The > current IBM I2C driver (i2c-ibm_iic.c) checks "index" and most FSL dts files > use "cell-index". Some 4xx dts files implement "cell-index" some have no > index at all. > > So what should be used here. Please advise and I'll prepare a patch for it. I just posted a patch for the FSL I2C driver to check for cell-index. I'm under the impression that cell-index is the standard for enumerating devices in the device tree. My vote: any driver that currently checks for index should first check cell-index, and any device tree that has index should add cell-index. In time, we can remove 'index' from the device trees. -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale