[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <6B2293E0-BE5E-4C2E-9A48-4E91079A7422@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:51:29 -0500
From: Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>
To: avorontsov@...mvista.com
Cc: Timur Tabi <timur@...escale.com>, 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 Apr 11, 2008, at 12:31 PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 09:21:06PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:12:30PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
>>> Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>>>
>>>> Or maybe I'm thinking here in terms of "fsl,ucc"... and cell-
>>>> index is
>>>> indeed should be -1... don't know. Please decide. ;-)
>>>
>>> Well, that's what I was thinking. cell-index is zero-based, so
>>> UCC1 should have
>>> cell-index = <0>.
>>>
>>> Of course, this means all the code needs to change, since I think
>>> device-id is
>>> one-based.
>>
>> Yup. You raised a really good question, because we're _introducing_
>> cell-index for UCC nodes, and if we'll choice wrong numbering scheme
>> now, then there will be no way back w/o breaking backward
>> compatibility.
>
> Hm... thinking about it more, we're introducing implementation for the
> cell-index, but device tree was "infected" already.
>
> So, too late. :-D
I say leave as you have it (UCC1 == cell-index = <1>).
Changing it so cell-index = <0> is just more confusing w/regards to
the docs.
- k
--
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