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