> > > > + MPIC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
> > > > + device_type = "open-pic";
> > > >
> > > > device_type = "interrupt-controller".
> >
> > Not according to the binding in booting-without-of.txt
>
> My understanding here, though possibly flawed, is that the current
> implementation has "open-pic" but _should_ have "interrupt-controller"
> as that is the officially correct name.
>
> I _think_ this means we need a transitional period where we update
> the code to look for "interrupt-controller", and obsoletedly, looks
> for the "open-pic", while we transition to the new, correct name.
"open-pic" is the correct value for the device_type property.
See the binding at:
http://playground.sun.com/1275/bindings/chrp/chrp1_8a.ps
That is the definition for open pic interrupt controllers (AFAIK).
I am not aware of any official binding with "interrupt-controller"
as the device_type.
However, the interrupt mapping spec says that all interrupt
controller (regardless of device_type) must have a
property named "interrupt-controller" to identify
the device node as an interrupt controller and root of
a interrupt tree.
See: http://playground.sun.com/1275/practice/imap/imap0_9d.html
Stuart
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
