On Thu, 06 Dec 2012, Viresh Kumar wrote:

On 6 December 2012 16:05, Lee Jones [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

Or you could not put unnecessary bindings into the Device Tree
by putting two and two together and realise that using the table
is the correct thing to do instead. This actually gives reason
to you previous patch, but should probably be fixed-up into it
so it has some proper meaning/purpose. ;)

Couldn't understand this one :(

Really?

I tried again, but couldn't get it :(

quoted

Let's break it down - what do you need "stmpe,id" for?

To distinguish two instances of of stmpe811 (for instance) on a board.
Names of stmpe sub-modules would contain .0, .1, if we have an id
passed to it. Passing -1 would create same names for both gpio blocks
which belonged to different stmpe811's.

I thought we'd be over this? The 'ID' will be represented by the
address of the chip i.e. stmpe1601@40, where '40' will be
distinguishing factor?

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog