On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 09:21:06PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > 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.
Hm... thinking about it more, we're introducing implementation for the cell-index, but device tree was "infected" already. So, too late. :-D -- Anton Vorontsov email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
