From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:57:56 +1100 From: David Gibson To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/14] Add device tree for Ebony Message-ID: <20070221045756.GA23082@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070220020837.GF17818@localhost.localdomain> <20070220021235.DC02DDDD06@ozlabs.org> <9696D7A991D0824DBA8DFAC74A9C5FA302A58C89@az33exm25.fsl.freescale.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Yoder Stuart-B08248 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 08:56:04PM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Since UIC1 is cascaded off UIC0 in the interrupt tree, > > UIC1 should have an interrupt-parent pointing to UIC0 > > so the interrupt tree can be traversed to the root. > > Not necessary if UIC0 is the device tree parent of UIC1. > (And in fact it would be "bad style"). But... > > > I know this was beaten to death last week, but I would > > still argue that in the device tree UIC0 and UIC1 should > > be siblings. (In the interrupt tree the cascade relationship > > is described through interrupt-parent). > > ... that is my opinion as well (as I'm sure you know ;-) ), > and then of course you _do_ need the interrupt-parent property. Ok, there are enough people of this opinion (including Paul), that I've changed to representing the UICs as siblings. -- 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