On Thursday 05 June 2008, Sean MacLennan wrote: > 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
I added Jean to CC now. > 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. So what should we do now? Currently I2C doesn't work at all on 4xx since the driver expects the "index" property and no dts sets this property. Personally I would like to move to using cell-index here, since this seems to be more common. But I could also life with removing the index property and using the "static index" if this is preferred and/or acceptable. Please advise. Thanks. Best regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
