No subject

given ASIC (typically 0x0 and 0x1 for EMAC0 and EMAC1 on each Axon
chip.

So, even if the intent was for cell-index to specify offsets into
shared regs, the description does not reflect that purpose.  And
reading thorough the rest of the document, cell-index is described
purely in terms of enumerating ip blocks, so that is clearly the
assumption that people are making when using it.

In other words, my point is this:  *If* cell-index is just a way to
encode the manufacturing assigned ip-block number (EMAC0, EMAC1, etc)
then there is probably little or no value in it.  The two arguments I
see for using cell-index in that mode are:

1) to offset into shared registers (but this doesn't hold because ip
block numbers often don't match register offsets and the reg property
would be just as suitable)

2) to logically identify ip blocks to the user (but cell-index was
never intended for this and /aliases is a better solution anyway)

> > Dropping cell-index would mean one less property to keep in sync when
> > tailoring device trees. (== less complexity for board porters).
> > Besides, the purpose of cell-index is often misunderstood already by
> > people trying to use it to describe port numbers (ttyS0, ttyS1, etc).
>
> This is indeed a problem.  But I don't think ditching cell-index
> entirely is a sensible solution, sorry.

Gah!  Don't apologize!  :-)  My goal was to spur on debate to better
firm up our device tree conventions.  Mission accomplished (or at
least in progress.)  :-)

Also, I can probably be convinced on the continued usage of
cell-index, but as it stands right now I think we're over using it.

Cheers,
g.

-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.