> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Segher Boessenkool > Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:50 PM > To: Josh Boyer > Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org > Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/8] Walnut DTS > > > + UIC0: interrupt-controller0 { > > Why not just "interrupt-controller"? > > > + #address-cells = <0>; > > + #size-cells = <0>; > > No need for these.
Isn't a good practice to put #address-cells in interrupt controller nodes? If the device tree has an interrupt map defined the interrupt parent 'unit interrupt specifier' has to be interpreted according to the #address-cells of the interrupt parent. It seems like typical practice in the current DTS files to explicitly define this in the interrupt controller. Of course this particular device tree doesn't have an interrupt map... #size-cells is not needed. Stuart _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
