On 5 January 2015 at 16:14, alvise rigo <a.r...@virtualopensystems.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > wrote: >> Sorry, I think I must have missed this series first time around. >> I'm not convinced -- I don't see any reason why we should treat >> the PCI host controller differently from other devices in the > > The reason for this is that the PCI host controller needs to generate > its device node after all the PCI devices have been added to the bus > (also those specified with the -device option). > This is required by the interrupt-map node property, that specifies > for each PCI device an interrupt map entry. Since we have one device > requiring this 'postponed' node generation, this patch allows also > other devices to do the same.
What? This doesn't sound right -- you can have hot-plugged PCI devices, for a start. Device tree is only supposed to be needed for the bits of hardware that can't be probed, and we can rely on PCI itself to probe the other devices. interrupt-map as far as I can tell just specifies how the interrupt lines are mapped for each PCI slot; it won't change based on whether devices are present or not. The example in the wiki: http://devicetree.org/Device_Tree_Usage#Advanced_Interrupt_Mapping cares about number of slots, but that's all. thanks -- PMM
