Hello, On 01/23/2012 09:56 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote: > add of support for the davinci i2c driver. > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocher<[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Cc: Ben Dooks<[email protected]> > Cc: Wolfram Sang<[email protected]> > Cc: Grant Likely<[email protected]> > Cc: Sekhar Nori<[email protected]> > Cc: Wolfgang Denk<[email protected]> > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/arm/davinci/i2c.txt | 39 ++++++++++++++++++ > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-davinci.c | 43 > ++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/davinci/i2c.txt > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/davinci/i2c.txt > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/davinci/i2c.txt > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..94ec670 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/davinci/i2c.txt > @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ > +* Texas Instruments Davinci I2C > + > +This file provides information, what the device node for the > +davinci i2c interface contain. > + > +Required properties: > +- compatible: "ti,davinci-i2c"; > +- reg : Offset and length of the register set for the device > +- id: id of the controller
I was wondering whether we're supposed to use "cell-index" property name for such a device instance index? or doesn't it really matter and "id" is fine? Such an IP instance index seems quite common so I thought it could be easier to follow to use standard name. -- Regards, Sylwester _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
