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 056D1DEA1F for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 01:30:13 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <484803C6.3090505@freescale.com> Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:18:30 -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> <200806050822.00797.sr@denx.de> <20080605094852.164f0bc7@hyperion.delvare> <200806051045.42966.sr@denx.de> <20080605065225.739ec4a8@zod.rchland.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20080605065225.739ec4a8@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Jean Delvare , Scott Wood , Stefan Roese , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Sean MacLennan List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Josh Boyer wrote: > seems to be a more distinct definition of what this is. But I have no > idea how well that would go over, and it would probably need to be > changed in all the fsl boards as well. Which would end up breaking backwards compatibility with older device trees. Like I said earlier, I'm in favor of expanding the definition of "cell-index". -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale