On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 10:12:57AM -0500, Brian Masney wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 03:54:05PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > Note that the node is labelled qup2_i2c5 and not qup_i2c5.
> >
> > That is, the QUP nodes are labelled using two indices, and specifically
> >
> > qup2_i2c5
> >
> > would be another name for
> >
> > qup_i2c21
> >
> > if we'd been using such a flat naming scheme (there are 8 engines per
> > QUP).
> >
> > So there's nothing wrong with how these nodes are currently named, but
> > mixing the two scheme as you are suggesting would not be correct.
>
> Hi Johan,
>
> What would I use for the name in the aliases section? Right now I have:
>
> aliases {
> i2c18 = &qup2_i2c18;
> }
>
> So qup2_i2c18 becomes qup2_i2c2. Would I use the flat naming scheme for
> the alias like so?
>
> aliases {
> i2c18 = &qup2_i2c2;
> }
Or perhaps the i2c controllers should use a zero-based index instead of
being named after the serial engines (e.g. as we do for the console
uart).
How are they named in the schematics?
Johan
