On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 03:46:45PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> 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.
cell-index should *only* be used if it's used to index into SoC-shared
registers. It should *never* be used for logical bus or device
numbering as it's being used here.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
