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

quoted

quoted

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

No need for these.

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

It is not.

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.

And "#address-cells" is defaulted to 0 if it is absent,
for the purpose of interrupt mapping (but not for its
other purposes).  Typically, such interrupt controllers
don't have device tree children so it doesn't make sense
to give them an "#address-cells" anyway.

It seems like
typical practice in the current DTS files to explicitly define this
in the interrupt controller.

That "typical practice" is inspired by the need to explicitly
put #address-cells and #size-cells into the device tree if you
want Linux to properly parse the device tree, even if the default
values would work perfectly (if Linux would work correctly,
that is).

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

#size-cells is not needed.

There are no child nodes, and no binding that says there can
be any; neither #address-cells not #size-cells should be there.


Segher