On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 01:35, David Gibson wrote:
> > > + PIC8259: interrupt-controller {
> > > + device_type = "i8259";
> > >
> > > device_type = "interrupt-controller".
>
> Is that really right? The MPIC binding, at least, has device_type =
> "open-pic" rather than "interrupt-controller".
>
> > > + compatible = "prep,iic";
> > > + reg = < 00000001 00000020 00000002
> > > + 00000001 000000a0 00000002
> > > + 00000001 000004d0 00000002>;
> > > + interrupts = <00000000 00000003
> > > + 00000002 00000003>;
> > > + interrupt-parent = <&MPIC>;
> > > + };
> > > + };
> > > +
> > > + MPIC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
> > > + device_type = "open-pic";
> > >
> > > device_type = "interrupt-controller".
>
> Not according to the binding in booting-without-of.txt
My understanding here, though possibly flawed, is that the current
implementation has "open-pic" but _should_ have "interrupt-controller"
as that is the officially correct name.
I _think_ this means we need a transitional period where we update
the code to look for "interrupt-controller", and obsoletedly, looks
for the "open-pic", while we transition to the new, correct name.
I'm just betting that if I'm wrong Segher will tell me! :-)
jdl
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
