Re: RFC: proposal to extend the open-pic interrupt specifier definition

[Scott Wood <scottwood-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org>]

Grant Likely wrote:
> Oh, and BTW, this is *exactly* why I advocate being explicit about
> what part the node describes instead of depending on some generic
> name.  ie. "fsl,p4080-mpic" instead of "chrp,open-pic".  So that you
> can deal with part specific oddities and so you can create new
> bindings when necessary.  Nodes can still put backwards compatible
> entries in the compatible list after the specific device when
> appropriate so that existing drivers can still bind to them.

I fully agree that there should be a more specific compatible -- this 
doesn't replace that (indeed, it's required to interpret the 
implementation-specific sections of the specifier).  The question is 
whether we could still include chrp,open-pic in the compatible list if 
there are additional bits set in the interrupt specifier.

-Scott