David Gibson wrote:
> Hrm... I'd say this is not something which has a firm convention yet.
> It's going to become more of an issue once we get a macros system for
> dtc, so the "440EP" macro would have all the devices, even if some are
> not connected on a given board.
>
> I'm contemplating suggesting that we adopt the "status" property from
> IEEE1275 to cover this.
>
>
When I am laying out the dts, leaving out what isn't used makes the dts
file cleaner, at least in my view. It doesn't hurt to have the second
i2c bus there, but it also doesn't help and leaving it out points out
that it is not used.
When we get a macro system I assume the second i2c bus will be there but
hidden by a macro. It will still be clean and shouldn't cause grief.
Cheers,
Sean
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
