Proposal: new device-tree syntax and semantics for extendinginformation from included dts files
David Gibson
david at gibson.dropbear.id.au
Sat Oct 16 18:10:10 EST 2010
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 05:58:06PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Stephen Neuendorffer
> <stephen.neuendorffer at xilinx.com> wrote:
> > The ambiguity between
> > bar; (referring to a property)
> > and
> > /trim-node/ bar; (referring to a node)
> >
> > Seems awkward, but perhaps unavoidable. At the very least, I don't have anything better to suggest.. :)
> >
> > perhaps in an ideal world, open firmware would originally have distinguished these by
> > having
> >
> > bar =; // Create an empty property
> > bar {}; // Create an empty node
> >
> > or something...
>
> Actually, none of this is OpenFirmware related. This syntax was
> created for use with dtc which is completely independent of
> OpenFirmware. Only the device tree structure and usage conventions
> are shared with dtc.
That's true. However, I'm pretty sure there was actually a reason
related to existing OF usage why I made the syntax for an empty
property 'thing;' rather than 'thing =;'. I no longer remember what
it was, though.
> However, we've already got a large userbase so making an incompatible
> source file format change would be unbelievably painful.
That too.
--
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
More information about the devicetree-discuss
mailing list