On 11/5/07, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jon Smirl wrote: > > On 11/5/07, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Jon Smirl wrote: > >>> This is my first pass at reworking the Freescale i2c driver. It > >>> switches the driver from being a platform driver to an open firmware > >>> one. I've checked it out on my hardware and it is working. > >> We may want to hold off on this until arch/ppc goes away (or at least > >> all users of this driver in arch/ppc). > > > > How about renaming the old driver file and leaving it hooked to ppc? > > Then it would get deleted when ppc goes away. That would let work > > progress on the powerpc version. > > Or we could have one driver that has two probe methods. I don't like > forking the driver.
I agree. This driver can and should have multiple bus bindings. > >>> cell-index = <1>; > >> What is cell-index for? > > > > I was using it to control the bus number, is that the wrong attribute? > > It shouldn't be specified at all -- the hardware has no concept of a > device number. cell-index is important. It describes the hardware, or more specifically the layout of the SoC. The SoC has 2 i2c busses which are numbered 0 and 1. This property should stay for the 5200. However, that is the only purpose of it. cell-index does *not* describe the system level bus number. > > I was allowing control of the bus number with "cell-index" and > > i2c_add_numbered_adapter(). > > Should I get rid of this and switch to i2c_add_adapter()? > > Yes. Yes, the purpose of cell-index is not to give an i2c bus number enumeration. Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (403) 399-0195 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
