Interrupt parent phandle typos in interrupt-map example about devicetree-specification HOT 3 OPEN

Unrelated, and not sure I've read closely enough: Why is the interrupt parent unit address included in interrupt-map? The phandle already points to its node, so it seems redundant.

Hmm... think I get it now. It's just so that the parent specifier can recursively translated with the same logic as for e.g. gpio-map, making it consistent. Might be nice to clarify that.

from devicetree-specification.

Can you submit a patch to fix this.

It's the child address that is part of the interrupt-map. I think the child address was primarily needed for PCI in some cases.

from devicetree-specification.

It's the child address that is part of the interrupt-map. I think the child address was primarily needed for PCI in some cases.

The parent address is included as well, in addition to the parent phandle:

interrupt-map:

...

child unit address: ...

child interrupt specifier: ...

interrupt-parent: <phandle>

parent unit address: The unit address in the domain of the interrupt parent. The number of 32-bit cells required to specify this address is described by the #address-cells property of the node pointed to by the interrupt-parent field.

parent interrupt specifier: ...

In the PCI example, #address-cells = <0> for the parent though, so it disappears.

from devicetree-specification.