On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:45:42 +0200 Stefan Roese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 05 June 2008, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > As far as I am concerned, it's really up to the maintainers and users > > of this platform. All I am asking for is that you do not call > > i2c_add_numbered_adapter() on an adapter with an automatically > > generated number. This function must only be used for adapter's those > > number is well defined. If an adapter doesn't have a well-defined > > number then use i2c_add_adapter() (but then you can no longer declare > > your I2C devices as part of the platform data.) > > Full ack from me. So I suggest to use "cell-index" if available and otherwise > use an incremented number, same as the FSL i2c driver does now: > > http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2008-June/057254.html > > If nobody objects I'll send a patch to add the cell-index to all 4xx dts > files > in a short while. I have no large objections. Though as Scott pointed out, this isn't really a proper use of "cell-index". Something like: "linux,i2c-index" seems to be a more distinct definition of what this is. But I have no idea how well that would go over, and it would probably need to be changed in all the fsl boards as well. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
