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;
}
Brian
