From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:46:41 +1100 From: David Gibson To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/16] Add device tree for Ebony Message-ID: <20070214044641.GB12402@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070213061026.5837FDDDE9@ozlabs.org> <20070214002210.GE11491@localhost.localdomain> <1171417866.20192.126.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1171417866.20192.126.camel@localhost.localdomain> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 12:51:06PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > > + UIC0: interrupt-controller { /* UIC0 */ > > > > > > > + #address-cells = <0>; > > > > + #size-cells = <0>; > > > > > > #address-cells = 0 never makes sense. > > > > Why not? Children of this node have and need no reg property, and no > > meaningful address. Sounds like #address-cells = 0 to me. > > In fact, not only it does make perfect sense but it's also routinely > used for ... interrupt controllers :-) That's among others why the > interrupt map entries "second" part usually doesn't contain the address > cells. Oh, btw, I take it you didn't think my method of placing the secondary UICs under the node for UIC0 was insane. > > > > + plb { > > > > + device_type = "soc"; > > > > + compatible = "ibm,plb-440gp", "ibm,plb4"; > > > > + ranges; > > > > > > You need a #address-cells, #size-cells here. > > > > Why? The values inherited from the root node are perfectly ok here. > > Inheriting values is out of spec. The kernel somewhat does it but that's > a bad habit, we should always have them explicit. Ah, ok. Values added. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson