>> Yes indeed. The problem with your suggested "obvious way" > > I said it was obvious, not obviously correct. :-)
I know :-) >> 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. This might work; it is less flexible than the actual interrupt mapping definition though (and such flexibility is good, as long as you don't abuse it ;-) ). Anyway, we're stuck with the actual current imap recommended practice. It might not be perfect but it does work, is proven in the field, and is the standard. Segher _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
