From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from de01egw02.freescale.net (de01egw02.freescale.net [192.88.165.103]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "de01egw02.freescale.net", Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 713CCDE4BF for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 01:24:40 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <4848028B.5060105@freescale.com> Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:13:15 -0500 From: Timur Tabi MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Josh Boyer Subject: Re: "cell-index" vs. "index" vs. no index in I2C device nodes References: <200806041706.21557.sr@denx.de> <4846B39F.3010601@freescale.com> <20080604154351.GB10393@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> <20080604211942.2bddc860@zod.rchland.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20080604211942.2bddc860@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Scott Wood , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Stefan Roese List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Josh Boyer wrote: > From a device tree perspective, index and cell-index are both > incorrect. The IIC macros don't share register blocks with anything, > are enumerated as unique instances per macro in the device tree, and > should be able to be distinguished by "regs" and/or unit address. I think we should just expand the definition of cell-index to include standard device enumeration for when it's needed. The original definition is too limited, IMHO. -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale