On 12/13/2022 8:58 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
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?
We should use from 0 to N.
Shazad
Johan
