From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anton Vorontsov Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [POWERPC] UCC nodes cleanup Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:21:06 +0400 Message-ID: <20080411172106.GA17786@polina.dev.rtsoft.ru> 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> <20080411171109.GA16119@polina.dev.rtsoft.ru> <47FF9BFE.5000201@freescale.com> Reply-To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Cc: Kumar Gala , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Jeff Garzik , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Timur Tabi Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47FF9BFE.5000201@freescale.com> Sender: linux-serial-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:12:30PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > > Or maybe I'm thinking here in terms of "fsl,ucc"... and cell-index is > > indeed should be -1... don't know. Please decide. ;-) > > Well, that's what I was thinking. cell-index is zero-based, so UCC1 should have > cell-index = <0>. > > Of course, this means all the code needs to change, since I think device-id is > one-based. Yup. You raised a really good question, because we're _introducing_ cell-index for UCC nodes, and if we'll choice wrong numbering scheme now, then there will be no way back w/o breaking backward compatibility. -- Anton Vorontsov email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2