Re: "cell-index" vs. "index" vs. no index in I2C device nodes
From: Segher Boessenkool <hidden>
Date: 2008-06-07 00:26:13
From: Segher Boessenkool <hidden>
Date: 2008-06-07 00:26:13
quoted
Well, I just don't see the point of having two different properties that say the same thing. I'm not an IEE 1275 purist, so I don't think we should be hampered by old node definitions. I especially don't like having a property specifically for indexing I2C nodes that can't be used to enumerate other nodes.It's not about purity. It's about overloading something that has existing semantics just because you have one usecase that you _think_ needs it. If everyone did that, this whole device tree concept is going to just be one big cluster f*ck.
One important way of preventing this overloading and death-by-complexity is to make most properties specific to a particular binding. It is good if other bindings that need similar functionality can use similar properties, or sometimes even identical ones; but there are only a few properties that are defined for *every* node. Trying to make stuff too generic just doesn't work. Segher