James Baldwin wrote at Tuesday, May 10, 2011 1:24 PM:
> I have the following i2c topology and specify the devices as follows:
> i2c@3100 {
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
> cell-index = <1>;
> compatible = "fsl-i2c";
> reg = <0x3100 0x100>;
> interrupts = <15 0x8>;
> interrupt-parent = <&ipic>;
> dfsrr;
>
> temp-sensor@49 {
> compatible = "national,lm73";
> reg = <0x49>;
> };
>
> eeprom@54 {
> compatible = "at24,24c02";
> reg = <0x54>;
> pagesize = <4>;
> };
>
> mux@77 {
Bear in mind I'm very new to devicetree, but in:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg03910.html
it was suggested to name this node "i2cmux" not "mux".
> #address-cells = <2>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
> compatible = "philips,pca9547";
> reg = <0x77>;
>
> mux@0,70 {
... and this node "i2c" not "mux".
The implication was the the node names actually have an effect on the
parsing, and need to match the type of object represented. Does renaming
them following those conventions help?
> #address-cells = <2>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
> compatible = "philips,pca9547";
> reg = <0 0x70>;
> };
>...
--
nvpublic
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
