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. OK, I see; that makes sense. I'll drop this patch in v2 and fix up the new nodes accordingly. Thank you for the explanation! Brian
