On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 12:33:20PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2016-07-19 06:14, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >> +batman@0a {
> >> + compatible = "lltc,ltc1760";
> >> + reg = <0x0a>;
> >> + #address-cells = <1>;
> >> + #size-cells = <0>;
> >> +
> >> + i2c@1 {
> >> + #address-cells = <1>;
> >> + #size-cells = <0>;
> >
> > Rob, aren't those two lines inherited from above?
>
> I too think they are inherited, but am a bit undecided whether I want
> that fact to be explored or not, as they just happen to match. They do
> not express the same thing (it is for the i2c-mux number in the parent,
> and for the i2c device address in the children).
Ah, I see. If they don't mean the same thing, then we should be rather
safe than sorry, I guess.
> But the repetitions are indeed tedious when there are many muxed
> buses...
Yes.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
