Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Yes indeed. The problem with your suggested "obvious way"
I said it was obvious, not obviously correct. :-) > is that you wouldn't get a unit address included if your > interrupt-map points (for some entry) at your device tree > parent, either. Not all that hypothetical. Ah, good point. My inclination would be to, rather than check how we got to the node, check whether it's the device's parent. If not, then the presence of #address-cells (other than zero for compatibility) is an error. Otherwise, #address-cells is used, and defaults are handled the same as with reg/ranges translation. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
