Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/8] Walnut DTS

From: Scott Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:47:46 -0500

Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Yes indeed.  The problem with your suggested "obvious way"

I said it was obvious, not obviously correct. :-)

> is that you wouldn't get a unit address included if your
> interrupt-map points (for some entry) at your device tree
> parent, either.  Not all that hypothetical.

Ah, good point.  My inclination would be to, rather than check how we 
got to the node, check whether it's the device's parent.  If not, then 
the presence of #address-cells (other than zero for compatibility) is an 
error.  Otherwise, #address-cells is used, and defaults are handled the 
same as with reg/ranges translation.

-Scott