+For devices that generate interrupts to multiple interrupt
+controllers, the  interrupt-parent representation
+is not sufficient because it only describes a single
+interrupt parent. The 'interrupt-parents' property should be used
+to represent this (note the plural in the property name).

s/should be used/can be used/

+   pic0: pic@700 {
+       interrupt-controller;
+       #address-cells = <0>;
+       #interrupt-cells = <2>;
+       reg = <700 100>;
+       device_type = "open-pic";
+   };

I still say the #address-cells should be removed.

+   ethernet@25000 {
+       #address-cells = <1>;
+       #size-cells = <0>;
+       device_type = "network";
+       model = "fsl,TSEC";
+       compatible = "gianfar";
+       reg = <25000 1000>;
+       mac-address = [ 00 E0 0C 00 73 01 ];
+       interrupt-parents = <&pic0 &pic0 &pic1>;
+       interrupts = <13 3 14 3 18 3>;
+       phy-handle = <2452001>;
+   };

Maybe write this like

ethernet@25000 {
         device_type = "network";
         reg = <25000 1000>;
         ...
         interrupt-parents = <&pic0 &pic0 &pic1>;
         interrupts = <13 3 14 3 18 3>;
};

to make the example more readable?  And some spacing in
the properties, so maybe

ethernet@25000 {
         device_type = "network";
         reg = <25000 1000>;
         ...
         interrupt-parents = <&pic0 &pic0 &pic1>;
         interrupts        = <13 3  14 3  18 3 >;
};

+Note: each interrupt parent in the interrupt-parents array can
+potentially specify a different value for #interrupt-cells.  The 
number
+of #interrupt-cells for each parent must be determined to correctly
+parser the interrupts property.

s/parser/parse/


Segher