On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:33:16 +1100 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > + > > > + mpic: [EMAIL PROTECTED] { > > > + #interrupt-cells = <2>; > > > + #address-cells = <0>; > > > > Is #address-cells needed? There are no child nodes. > > It's preferrable for interrupt controllers as #address-cells of the > parent interrupt controller defines the size of the interrupt unit > specifier in the child in the interrupt tree. > > I think there's an ongoing argument as to whether the absence of > #address-cells should be the same as #address-cells = 0 in that specific > case but I'm not sure the code does the right thing so let's have it > explicit. The code doesn't handle the lack of #address-cells in nodes where there is an interrupt-map. It pukes if there is no reg property and addrsize != 0. In the absence of the #address-cells property, it will try to look at the parent's #address-cells, and if that lacks it, it will assign 2 which it then merrily decides is incorrect. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev