RE: [RFC][PATCH 6/8] Walnut DTS

=20

-----Original Message-----
From: linuxppc-dev-bounces+b08248=3Dfreescale.com@ozlabs.org=20
[mailto:linuxppc-dev-bounces+b08248=3Dfreescale.com@ozlabs.org]=20
On Behalf Of Segher Boessenkool
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:50 PM
To: Josh Boyer
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/8] Walnut DTS
=20

quoted

+	UIC0: interrupt-controller0 {

=20
Why not just "interrupt-controller"?
=20

quoted

+		#address-cells =3D <0>;
+		#size-cells =3D <0>;

=20
No need for these.

Isn't a good practice to put #address-cells in interrupt controller
nodes?

If the device tree has an interrupt map defined the interrupt
parent 'unit interrupt specifier' has to be interpreted according
to the #address-cells of the interrupt parent.  It seems like=20
typical practice in the current DTS files to explicitly define this
in the interrupt controller.

Of course this particular device tree doesn't have an interrupt
map...

#size-cells is not needed.

Stuart