In section 2.4.1 Properties for Interrupt Generating Devices, we’ve had the following statement in the 'interrupt-parent’ section: If this property is missing from a device, its interrupt parent is assumed to be its devicetree parent. I believe we inherited this from 'Open Firmware Recommended Practice: Interrupt Mapping, Version 0.9’. The way this reads seems to differ from how we’ve actually implemented things for years. This reads to me to mean that if a node does NOT have a `interrupt-parent` property that the parent node is the interrupt parent it one should expect the parent to have properties like `interrupt-controller` or `interrupt-map`. However the behavior we’ve used is that if `interrupt-parent` is missing, to look at the parent for an `interrupt-parent` property and walk up the tree til you find an `interrupt-parent` property. So, maybe this should read something like: "If this property is missing from a device, its interrupt parent should be given by an `interrupt-parent` property on its devicetree parent” Thoughts? - k
