Sure, for every specific case one can envision a more neat
and compact device tree ;-P

Still... I do think that even in the general case, providing a way to
directly encode pairs <parent,specifier> is useful, especially when
interrupt are wired in all sort of crazy ways as is common in the
embedded world.
 

If in a certain tree you have this "problem" with not only
the MAL but with lots of devices, you could introduce a
"fake" interrupt nexus that doesn't represent a physical
device as such, but that represents the combined cascaded
interrupt controllers, and maps the interrupts to the nodes
for the "physical" interrupt controllers.  Just don't make
the mistake of putting an "interrupt-controller" property
in there and all is just fine.  As an added bonus you end up
with one single namespace for the interrupts (one interrupt
domain in interrupt-mapping speak), which is probably what
the chip documentation does as well.


Segher

_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev