From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.scram.de (mail0.scram.de [78.47.204.202]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.scram.de", Issuer "scram e.V. CA" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19A1ADE3F0 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 01:51:57 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <48480BA0.2060500@scram.de> Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:52:00 +0200 From: Jochen Friedrich MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grant Likely 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> <4848028B.5060105@freescale.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Scott Wood , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Stefan Roese , Timur Tabi List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Grant, > if you need explicit indexing then use an alias. My opinion however > is that explicit indexing is unnecessary and is just an artifact of > current i2c subsystem internals. There is already enough information > in the device tree to match i2c devices with i2c busses without > resorting to indexes. True. However, there are currently drivers which need platform data for its initialisation (like drivers/gpio/pca953x.c). Unless these drivers are rewritten, they can't be loaded just by parsing the device tree, so they must be loaded from platform init code and here the adapter index is needed to attach the driver. Thanks, Jochen