On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 02:55:16PM -0700, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
>
> > > > > + 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.
That's what I thought.
> 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
Ah, yes. Added to both the mpic and 8259.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
