On Apr 11, 2008, at 12:31 PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
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
I say leave as you have it (UCC1 == cell-index = <1>).
Changing it so cell-index = <0> is just more confusing w/regards to
the docs.
- k
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
