Please, take a look at my comments below
Stefan Roese wrote:
> This patch reworks existing ibm-iic driver to support of_platform_device
> and enables it to talk to device tree directly. The "old" OCP interface
> for arch/ppc is still supported via #ifdef's and shall be removed when
> arch/ppc is g
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:19:39PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:21:38 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On 10/15/07, David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In fact I think it may be acceptle to do the idx++ thing in this
> > > situation. Bus numbers are ugly, but it's no
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:21:38 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On 10/15/07, David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In fact I think it may be acceptle to do the idx++ thing in this
> > situation. Bus numbers are ugly, but it's not the worst ugliness in
> > the horrible mess that is the Linux i2c su
On 10/15/07, David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As the inventor of "linux,network-index", please don't invent
> "linux,i2c-index". linux,network-index was and is a hack - it's
> badness is limited by the fact that it's essentially local to the
> bootwrapper. It's only used in the bootwrapp
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 01:13:14PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On 10/15/07, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:57:48AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > Segher is recommending that we use an aliases node as per the open
> > > firmware example for this. I think in
Grant Likely wrote:
> On 10/15/07, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Don't Do That(tm). If you use this mechanism, and an adapter node
>> doesn't have a bus number, then it doesn't get to pre-register devices,
>> but instead must use i2c_new_device.
>
> Even that doesn't work. For example
On 10/15/07, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
> > On 10/15/07, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> For associating a device node with a human readable label, I'd
> >> prefer a "label" property in the device node, rather than doing it
> >> backwards with aliases.
>
Grant Likely wrote:
> On 10/15/07, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For associating a device node with a human readable label, I'd
>> prefer a "label" property in the device node, rather than doing it
>> backwards with aliases.
>
> Here the corresponding problem; having to scan every devic
On 10/15/07, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
> > On 10/15/07, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:57:48AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> >>> Segher is recommending that we use an aliases node as per the open
> >>> firmware example for this
Grant Likely wrote:
> On 10/15/07, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:57:48AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> Segher is recommending that we use an aliases node as per the open
>>> firmware example for this. I think in this case it would look
>>> something like this
Eugene Surovegin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 01:53:40PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
>> Though, I don't see what the problem with the original approach is,
>> as long as the numbers are chosen in the same way when registering
>> i2c clients based on the children of the adapter node. There's no
>>
On 10/15/07, Eugene Surovegin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 01:53:40PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > Though, I don't see what the problem with the original approach is, as long
> > as the numbers are chosen in the same way when registering i2c clients based
> > on the children
On 10/15/07, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:57:48AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > Segher is recommending that we use an aliases node as per the open
> > firmware example for this. I think in this case it would look
> > something like this (but I'm not the exper
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 01:53:40PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> Though, I don't see what the problem with the original approach is, as long
> as the numbers are chosen in the same way when registering i2c clients based
> on the children of the adapter node. There's no concept in the hardware
> itsel
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:57:48AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> Segher is recommending that we use an aliases node as per the open
> firmware example for this. I think in this case it would look
> something like this (but I'm not the expert):
>
> aliases {
> IIC0 = "/path/to/bus/[EMAIL PROTE
On 10/15/07, Eugene Surovegin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 03:29:11PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
>
>
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_MERGE
> > +static int device_idx = -1;
> > +#endif
> > +
>
>
>
> > + dev->idx = ++device_idx;
> > + adap->nr = dev->idx;
>
> Hmm, this does
On 10/15/07, Stefan Roese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch reworks existing ibm-iic driver to support of_platform_device
> and enables it to talk to device tree directly. The "old" OCP interface
> for arch/ppc is still supported via #ifdef's and shall be removed when
> arch/ppc is gone in a
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 03:29:11PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_MERGE
> +static int device_idx = -1;
> +#endif
> +
> + dev->idx = ++device_idx;
> + adap->nr = dev->idx;
Hmm, this doesn't look right. That mighty powerpc device everybody
was so excited about for the
This patch reworks existing ibm-iic driver to support of_platform_device
and enables it to talk to device tree directly. The "old" OCP interface
for arch/ppc is still supported via #ifdef's and shall be removed when
arch/ppc is gone in a few months.
This is done to enable I2C support for the PPC4x
19 matches
Mail list logo
