"cell-index" vs. "index" vs. no index in I2C device nodes

[Sean MacLennan]

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 22:05:55 -0500
Josh Boyer <jwboyer at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> I'm not proposing we remove that.  I'm just proposing that it can be
> derived from something other than an "index" property.  Fill it in
> using a static integer that gets incremented for each new device
> found.  It's not like we have an indeterminate probe order, or these
> IIC macros can be hot-plugged.

That's how it used to work by default. It was decided to drop that and
enforce an index. The following is a quote from Jean Delvare from a
post from 8/2/16 4:31:

> I don't like this static index thing much. Can't you just make the
> "index" OF property mandatory? Mixing ways to number things can become
> very confusing. In particular as you are using dev->idx later to call
> i2c_add_numbered_adapter(), the caller is really supposed to know what
> they are doing with the bus numbers.

Maybe it is time to remove the index, or maybe we should go back to
using both a static and the index. But at the time we decided to enforce
an index.

Cheers,
   Sean