On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 16:55 -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > I would personally be inclined to define that whatever spec we come up > > with always require #address-cells/#size-cells for any node that can > > have either device children or interrupt children, and ban default > > values alltogether. > > When is #size-cells used in the interrupt tree at all?
It's not, sorry, my fingers typed a bit too fast :-) > And given the odd behavior of using an interrupt map in an interrupt > parent that is not the device parent (you're potentially using keys from > different domains that could clash, be a different sizes, etc), if we > make any changes in that regard, I'd forbid interrupt maps in interrupt > controllers with no device children, and thus #address-cells has no > meaning there. No, interrupt maps are useful in devices with no children in some corner cases. Remember that a map doesnt need to use the address part of the source specifier, thus it can be used to do a pure domain->domain conversion of the irq numbers, what sort of thing. The map has the added advantage that today, it's the only mechanism that allows you to specify different interrupt-parents through the same nexus, which is useful for 4xx. Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
