On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 22:05:55 -0500 Josh Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not proposing we remove that. I'm just proposing that it can be > derived from something other than an "index" property. Fill it in > using a static integer that gets incremented for each new device > found. It's not like we have an indeterminate probe order, or these > IIC macros can be hot-plugged. That's how it used to work by default. It was decided to drop that and enforce an index. The following is a quote from Jean Delvare from a post from 8/2/16 4:31: > I don't like this static index thing much. Can't you just make the > "index" OF property mandatory? Mixing ways to number things can become > very confusing. In particular as you are using dev->idx later to call > i2c_add_numbered_adapter(), the caller is really supposed to know what > they are doing with the bus numbers. Maybe it is time to remove the index, or maybe we should go back to using both a static and the index. But at the time we decided to enforce an index. Cheers, Sean _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
