[PATCH 8/9 V3] Add documentation for the new DTS language.

[David Gibson]

On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 02:17:47PM -0800, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: glikely at secretlab.ca [mailto:glikely at secretlab.ca] On Behalf Of Grant Likely
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:49 PM
> > To: Stephen Neuendorffer
> > Cc: Yoder Stuart-B08248; Wood Scott-B07421; devicetree-discuss at ozlabs.org; John Williams; Jeremy Kerr
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9 V3] Add documentation for the new DTS language.
[snip]
> > This is never legal.  If deleting by label, it must be at the top
> > level.  It doesn't make sense to use a label reference inside a node
> > block, since the node block is already supposed to define where you
> > are working in the tree.
> > 
> > >        delete(bar); // May or may not be Illegal, since don't know what bar-label references
> > 
> > No longer an issue since the previous line is illegal.
> > 
> > Also, must be either delete-node() or delete-prop() since nodes and
> > properties can use the same names.
> 
> So, is it true that a tree which is overlayed on another tree can be
> independently verified to be independent of internal ordering?  This
> would be nice if so.

Hrm, yes and no.  Most of our tests for duplicate labels and so forth
are only performed after all the overlay/merging is completed.

Which brings up another inconsistency in the current processing.
Although:

	/ {
		foo = "bar";
		foo = "baz";
	};

is illegal and will cause an error, the way that merge_nodes() is
implemented means that the following will be accepted:

	/ {
	};
	/ {
		foo = "bar";
		foo = "baz";
	};

(and the foo property will have the final value "baz").

-- 
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