From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.241]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD153DE085 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 01:04:27 +1000 (EST) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c37so462190anc.78 for ; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:04:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:04:24 -0600 From: "Grant Likely" Sender: glikely@secretlab.ca To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [POWERPC] UCC nodes cleanup In-Reply-To: <20080411170657.GA15270@polina.dev.rtsoft.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Jeff Garzik , Timur Tabi , 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: , On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:48:37AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > > Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 09:13:36AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > > >> On Mar 11, 2008, at 12:10 PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > >>> - get rid of `model = "UCC"' in the ucc nodes > > >>> It isn't used anywhere, so remove it. If we'll ever need something > > >>> like this, we'll use compatible property instead. > > >>> - replace cell-index and device-id properties by fsl,ucc. > > >>> > > >>> Drivers are modified for backward compatibility's sake. > > >> I'd prefer we use cell-index and not introduce "fsl,ucc". I'm ok with > > >> dropping device-id and model (its implied in the compatiable). > > > > > > Ok. Here it is. netdev and linux-serial Cc'ed. > > > > 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? Then I believe we should stick > with it for device tree, since off by one is Linux implementation details. Plus making such a change will break deployed device trees. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.