[RFC][PATCH 6/8] Walnut DTS

[Yoder Stuart-B08248]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linuxppc-dev-bounces+b08248=freescale.com at ozlabs.org 
> [mailto:linuxppc-dev-bounces+b08248=freescale.com at ozlabs.org] 
> On Behalf Of Segher Boessenkool
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:50 PM
> To: Josh Boyer
> Cc: linuxppc-dev at ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/8] Walnut DTS
> 
> > +	UIC0: interrupt-controller0 {
> 
> Why not just "interrupt-controller"?
> 
> > +		#address-cells = <0>;
> > +		#size-cells = <0>;
> 
> 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 
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