On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:41:12 +0200 Stefan Roese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. :) > > I could easily just have used this existing "index" property for the other > 4xx > boards, but expected NAK's for this. That and because FSL uses "cell-index" > is why I asked prior to sending patches. > > Now I have no idea how to support I2C on the other 4xx boards. Perhaps Josh > could advise how this should be done? As David said elsewhere, cell-index is fine for figuring out how to access the CPM registers, etc. But it's not good for enumerating across the whole system. For I2C specifically, I think Sean already has a patch to switch the 4xx driver to not use the numbered functions, which eliminates the need for the enumeration all together. That seems like the right approach to me. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
