From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-in-09.arcor-online.net (mail-in-09.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx.arcor.de", Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67A5FDDE9E for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:31:02 +1100 (EST) In-Reply-To: <9696D7A991D0824DBA8DFAC74A9C5FA302A59732@az33exm25.fsl.freescale.net> References: <200702212325.l1LNPBwL007793@ld0164-tx32.am.freescale.net><20070222011811.GA18364@localhost.localdomain><45b623f395654fc4f4920b9553794def@kernel.crashing.org><20070222103410.GB11014@localhost.localdomain> <9696D7A991D0824DBA8DFAC74A9C5FA302A592C7@az33exm25.fsl.freescale.net> <259dc2545888e6588a8a0707ad2e84b0@kernel.crashing.org> <9696D7A991D0824DBA8DFAC74A9C5FA302A59732@az33exm25.fsl.freescale.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <1fb51bd63da9a7de836f3037908be52e@kernel.crashing.org> From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: document new interrupt-array property Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:30:54 +0100 To: "Yoder Stuart-B08248" Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, David Gibson List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >> I'd rather write it like >> >>> interrupts = < a 4 b 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 > >>> interrupt-parents = <&UIC0 &UIC0 &UIC1 &UIC1 &UIC1> >> > > Segher, with your proposal here of an interrupt-parents property > is this really keeping with the normal OF way of representing > property values? > > Examples exists where one property tells you how to interpret > or decode another (e.g. #address-cells), but your proposal we > have two distinct properties each with values that together > provide the complete 'value' (interrupt parent + interrupt > specifier). Is there any precedent for this approach? "interrupt-parent" normally is a separate property already. "My" way, you keep the original definition for "interrupts" and the bleeding obvious definition for "interrupt-parents". An example where two arrays with corresponding entries is already used is "alternate-reg" in the PCI binding. There are literally hundreds of examples of non-array properties that only make sense together, of course. Both "alternate-reg" and "interrupt-parents" can be seen as an optional extension to their corresponding array properties ("reg" and "interrupts" respectively) so it all makes perfect sense (to me, at least ;-) ). Segher