>>> + #address-cells = <0>; >>> + #size-cells = <0>; >> >> No need for these. > > Isn't a good practice to put #address-cells in interrupt controller > nodes?
It is not. > 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. And "#address-cells" is defaulted to 0 if it is absent, for the purpose of interrupt mapping (but not for its other purposes). Typically, such interrupt controllers don't have device tree children so it doesn't make sense to give them an "#address-cells" anyway. > It seems like > typical practice in the current DTS files to explicitly define this > in the interrupt controller. That "typical practice" is inspired by the need to explicitly put #address-cells and #size-cells into the device tree if you want Linux to properly parse the device tree, even if the default values would work perfectly (if Linux would work correctly, that is). > Of course this particular device tree doesn't have an interrupt > map... > > #size-cells is not needed. There are no child nodes, and no binding that says there can be any; neither #address-cells not #size-cells should be there. Segher _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
