Subject: [RFC PATCH 5/7] ARM: davinci: i2c: add OF support

From: [email-masked] (Sylwester Nawrocki)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:35:12 +0100

Hello,

On 01/23/2012 09:56 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> add of support for the davinci i2c driver.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocher<[email-masked]>
> Cc: davinci-linux-open-source at linux.davincidsp.com
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> Cc: devicetree-discuss at lists.ozlabs.org
> Cc: linux-i2c at vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Ben Dooks<[email-masked]>
> Cc: Wolfram Sang<[email-masked]>
> Cc: Grant Likely<[email-masked]>
> Cc: Sekhar Nori<[email-masked]>
> Cc: Wolfgang Denk<[email-masked]>
> ---
>   .../devicetree/bindings/arm/davinci/i2c.txt        |   39 ++++++++++++++++++
>   drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-davinci.c                   |   43 ++++++++++++++++++++
>   2 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/davinci/i2c.txt
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/davinci/i2c.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/davinci/i2c.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..94ec670
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/davinci/i2c.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
> +* Texas Instruments Davinci I2C
> +
> +This file provides information, what the device node for the
> +davinci i2c interface contain.
> +
> +Required properties:
> +- compatible: "ti,davinci-i2c";
> +- reg : Offset and length of the register set for the device
> +- id: id of the controller

I was wondering whether we're supposed to use "cell-index" property name
for such a device instance index? or doesn't it really matter and "id" is 
fine? Such an IP instance index seems quite common so I thought it could
be easier to follow to use standard name.

--
Regards,
Sylwester