[PATCH] Implements new features for updating existing device tree nodes.

[David Gibson]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 08:21:17PM -0700, John Bonesio wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 20:35 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
[snip]
> > > +       | devicetree DT_REMOVENODE DT_REF ';'
> > > +               {
> > > +                       struct node *target;
> > > +
> > > +                       target = get_node_by_label($1, $3);
> > > +                       if (target)
> > > +                               remove_nodes(target);
> > > +                       else
> > > +                               yyerror("label, '%s' does not exist in"
> > > +                                       " node removal", $3);
> > >        ;
> > 
> > This handles the syntax at the top level, but doesn't deal with the
> > /*-node/ keywords when they are within the overlay tree.
> > 
> > Also, I don't know if you'll be able to handle it in the same way when
> > it comes to handling the new tokens embedded within an overlay tree
> > because it isn't so easy to resolve the node to be removed.  In order
> > to handle both cases in the same way, it might be better to set a
> > 'replace' flag in struct node that defers the actual remove of the
> > original node until merge_nodes() time.
> 
> Ok, so maybe I misunderstood. I thought we had decided that node
> modifications would only happen at the top level, but now that I'm
> looking back through your examples earlier today, and I see this isn't
> true.

Um.. that part of the discussion got confusing.  I think only allowing
the operations (and I still don't think the set implemented here are
quite right, though they're close) at the top-level is a better idea.

Grant, is there a reason you think we need to have replacement as an
option within each tree, rather than a "per-overlay-sheet" option.

-- 
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