From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Timur Tabi Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [POWERPC] UCC nodes cleanup Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:08:17 -0500 Message-ID: <47FF9B01.7010207@freescale.com> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Kumar Gala , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Jeff Garzik , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080411170657.GA15270@polina.dev.rtsoft.ru> Sender: linux-serial-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Anton Vorontsov wrote: >> 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? Yes. > Then I believe we should stick > with it for device tree, since off by one is Linux implementation details. Fair enough. -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale