Re: "cell-index" vs. "index" vs. no index in I2C device nodes
From: Segher Boessenkool <hidden>
Date: 2008-06-06 02:41:35
quoted
quoted
From a device tree perspective, index and cell-index are bothincorrect. The IIC macros don't share register blocks with anything, are enumerated as unique instances per macro in the device tree, and should be able to be distinguished by "regs" and/or unit address. Does anyone disagree with that?Hear, hear.
x2.
Aliases can also provide a reasonable way of enumerating devices, if "reg" isn't suitable on its own.
Yes. In almost all cases, drivers and subsystems do not need this at all though. In OF, one device points to another by putting the phandle of that pointed-to device in some property (and buses are represented by their parent bridge). If the Linux subsystem wants to use an integer for distinguishing between its various buses, that's fine, but it can just make up these numbers -- the numbers themselves have no actual meaning, only the relationships expressed via those numbers do. In a few cases, particularly where those numbers are user-visible, like in ethN, the aliases construct is a good solution. If a driver/subsystem is relying on the aliases though, it should document this in a (platform?) binding -- and it would better have a very good reason for it! Segher