Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/16] Add device tree for Ebony

From: Segher Boessenkool <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 04:09:15 +0100

>> Yes.  UIC1 is not addressed via UIC0, and as such should
>> not be a child of it; it should be a direct child of its DCR
>> controller, just like UIC0.
>
> No, the DCR tree, like the interrupt tree in most cases, is
> independent of the main tree structure.

Yes true; you can hang the UICs from somewhere under the
"soc" node or whatever you want.  You need some way to
distinguish separate identical devices though; you can't
do it by device unit since your devices don't have any
(they don't have a "reg" but only a "dcr-reg").  If you
would hang them in a DCR tree, you could use the plain
"reg" property instead of the "dcr-reg" property and
all would be fine (if the DCR binding allows this -- and
it better should, it is the standard OF addressing algorithm).

However, my main point remains: the two interrupt controllers
should be siblings in the device tree, since they are that on
the hardware.

Segher