On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 08:41:12PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
> On Thursday 26 June 2008, Sean MacLennan wrote:
> > > Well, there's a lot of disagreement on this subject. Not only do we
> > > not agree on a method of enumerating devices, a lot of people have a
> > > problem with the concept of enumerating them in the first place!
> >
> > An interesting point is that I enforced an index in the i2c-ibm_iic
> > driver with no disagreement at all ;)
>
> You have been lucky I suppose. :)
Ah... that's because IIC does have a correct reason to have cell-index
- like most of the 4xx devices, we may need the index for programming
the CPM power control retisters - and we didn't notice you were also
using for the incorrect purpose of supplying an index to the i2c
layer.
Please note that cell-index *does* *not* *work* for the global index
if there are multiple SoC-like units in the system. For its correct
purpose of indexing the CPM registers, cell-index must be local to the
SoC, for the global index it must not.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
