From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com (wr-out-0506.google.com [64.233.184.231]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D82E3DEB67 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 01:39:17 +1000 (EST) Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 67so315969wri.3 for ; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 09:39:15 -0600 From: "Grant Likely" Sender: glikely@secretlab.ca To: "Timur Tabi" Subject: Re: "cell-index" vs. "index" vs. no index in I2C device nodes In-Reply-To: <4848028B.5060105@freescale.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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> 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: , On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Timur Tabi wrote: > 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. nak 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. Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.