[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080411171109.GA16119@polina.dev.rtsoft.ru>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:11:09 +0400
From: Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com>
To: Timur Tabi <timur@...escale.com>
Cc: Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [POWERPC] UCC nodes cleanup
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 09:06:57PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:48:37AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> > Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 09:13:36AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > >> On Mar 11, 2008, at 12:10 PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > >>> - get rid of `model = "UCC"' in the ucc nodes
> > >>> It isn't used anywhere, so remove it. If we'll ever need something
> > >>> like this, we'll use compatible property instead.
> > >>> - replace cell-index and device-id properties by fsl,ucc.
> > >>>
> > >>> Drivers are modified for backward compatibility's sake.
> > >> I'd prefer we use cell-index and not introduce "fsl,ucc". I'm ok with
> > >> dropping device-id and model (its implied in the compatiable).
> > >
> > > Ok. Here it is. netdev and linux-serial Cc'ed.
> >
> > Do we want the first UCC to have a cell-index of 1? Maybe we should fix this
> > off-by-one error once and for all, and number all UCCs from 0?
>
> Isn't documentation numbers UCC from 1? Then I believe we should stick
> with it for device tree, since off by one is Linux implementation details.
Or maybe I'm thinking here in terms of "fsl,ucc"... and cell-index is
indeed should be -1... don't know. Please decide. ;-)
--
Anton Vorontsov
email: cbouatmailru@...il.com
irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists