[PATCH 15/16] Add device tree for Ebony
Segher Boessenkool
segher at kernel.crashing.org
Thu Feb 15 11:03:08 EST 2007
>> There cannot *exist* any children of the node. Unless
>> your hardware is really weird. I guess it is :-)
>>
>> In such a case, you just don't put a "reg" property in
>> the kid nodes.
>
> No. The #address-cells in the interrupt controller is necessary to
> define the size of the unit address part of the unit interrupt
> specifier
> of interrupt children. Re-read your spec :-)
Like I said (perhaps elsewhere in this thread), there
might be something in the interrupt mapping spec yes.
But I don't see what... read on...
> Having it set to 0 provides the necessary definition so that the "right
> hand" members of an interrupt map don't need a unit address in their
> unit interrupt specifier.
And a missing #address-cells property means 0 for the
purpose of interrupt mapping. Here, have some quotes
from the spec:
> For nodes that represent devices, the number of cells to represent a
> unit interrupt specifier is the sum of the "#address-cells" and
> "#interrupt-cells" properties; for nodes that do not represent
> devices, there is no relevant "#address-cells" value, so that the
> number of cells is solely determined by the "#interrupt-cells" value.
> The latter case exists due to the nature of representing interrupt
> mapping outside the context of the normal device tree.
> Note that the "open-pic" node does not have a "#address-cells"
> property, so that the number of cells for the parent unit interrupt
> specifiers is 2 (which is the value of its "#interrupt-cells"
> property).
> if present( "#address-cells", parent-node )
> #cells = valueof( "#address-cells", parent-node )
> else #cells = 0 then
Segher
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list