On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 08:30 +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
quoted
If the kernel needs a convenient place to keep a phandle to the
top level interrupt controller,
Well that's the first point: the kernel doesn't need this
at all, it can derive this from the rest of the tree easy
enough.
Not that easy. I beleive it's better to have it expressed explicitely.
quoted
how about just under root?
CHRP does this (in an extra-plus nasty way).
quoted
(Or, we could make up a new node)
Duplicate node? No way. You can be flexible with adding
extra properties, but every node should represent a (pseudo-)
device, and every device in the system should be represented
by exactly one node.
Or you could make the convention that /aliases/interrupt-controller
points to the root interrupt controller, if you really
think you want this.
That too.
Ben.