> BTW: It looks like the Pegasos II device tree defines device_type = > "spi" > for the IDE controller. Is that correct?
There is no standard binding for an "spi" device type. I have no idea which of various "SPI" kind of devices is meant here; and none of the ones I know of have anything to do with ATA anyway. In short, it probably is incorrect. Also, in general, you shouldn't use "device_type" in flat device trees (the main exceptions are: some/most bus nodes, cpu nodes, some other "standard" nodes). >> There is no such thing as "interrupt 14 and 15" on PCI. You can use >> the interrupt mapping recommended practice to show two interrupts >> (and their polarity, and how they are routed to the relevant interrupt >> controller) in the IDE node. > But I'll still need a quirk in the IDE driver, because it doesn't make > use of any interrupt routing information in the device tree. If so, I > can omit the whole IDE controller device node and simply rely on the > IDE driver's probe functions and the Pegasos IDE IRQ quirk. > I wonder how this issue will be handled for libata and the via-pata > driver, since IIRC this one doesn't contain the Pegasos IDE IRQ quirk. I imagine the ata quirk would ask the arch or platform code about the interrupts used; it in turn can query the device tree. Segher _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
