On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 02:15:37PM +0000, Rob Herring wrote:

On 02/01/2013 04:58 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 12:34:10AM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 09:11:19AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:32:13PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:

quoted

Hi Simon,

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 01:50:49AM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+
+        gic: interrupt-controller at f0001000 {
+                compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-gic";
+                #interrupt-cells = <3>;
+                #address-cells = <1>;

Why is #address-cells needed here (and without #size-cells)? I see it's in the
binding document example, but I can't figure out why.

Its here because I copied the example.
I will see about removing it from here.

Rob, Grant, do either of you know if there's a reason for this that we've
missed?

The gic doesn't have any direct children, and this doesn't seem to be
some decvicetree interrupt-controller magic.

If you look at of_irq_map_raw, there are cases that look at
#address-cells. Those appear to be only when you have an interrupt-map
though.

Aah. So this is some devicetree magic after all. Thanks for looking into it.

quoted

If this is superfluous, how about the patch below?

The docs probably should state #addr-cells is only required with
interrupt-map.

That'd be nice. It might limit the confusion we had here.

quoted

I took a quick look at arch/arm/boot/dts/. Some gic nodes don't have
#address-cells, some have it but not #size-cells, and some have both. These
should probably be cleaned up too.

Some boards are using interrupt-map, so they may need #address-cells. So
I'm inclined to leave things alone.

That would make sense.

Thanks,
Mark.