[PATCH v3 3/3] dtc: Add support for variable sized cells

[David Gibson]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 01:48:31PM -0700, Anton Staaf wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 4:04 AM, David Gibson
> <david at gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:02:54AM -0700, Anton Staaf wrote:
> >        1) Exactly what to call the keyword.  /bits/ is better than
> > /size/, but I'd still like to stew a bit on it to see if we can come
> > up with anything better.
> 
> Sounds good.  I have a slight preference for /bits/ over something like
> /element-bits/ or /elementbits/.  But could be convinced if that was
> preferred.

I'm certainly leaning towards /bits/ in preference to those
alternatives, for the time being at least.

> >        2) In the documentation and internal naming, we're using
> > the term "cell" ambiguously.  In the discussion of this extension
> > we've been using "cell" to mean one array element, which is fair
> > enough since it's more-or-less standard CS terminology.  However, in
> > previous FDT and OF terminology "cell" refers to an exactly 32-bit
> > quantity [well, to be exact OF old-timers say this isn't strictly
> > right in old OF-ese, but it's close enough to meaning that for most
> > purposes].
> >        So, I think we need to find a different name for array cells
> > to clarify the terminology.  "elements" maybe?
> 
> The documentation all talks about arrays of cells.  Where as the source code
> always calls them lists of cells.  I agree that calling them cells once they are
> no longer fixed to 32-bits should be avoided.  One solution would be to rename
> the non-terminal and semantic variables in the parser from celllistprefix and
> celllist to arrayprefix and array respectively.  I would also change the error
> message about the size not being one of the supported sizes to say "element"
> instead of "cell".

That sounds good.

> I could likewise clean up the documentation so that the only mentions of the
> cell type were consistent with 32-bit cells.  In fact, reading over the
> documentation, it looks like a lot of the references to "cell array"
> can be turned
> into just "array", and the remaining references to "cell" can become "element".
> 
> How does this sound?

Sounds good.  I'd perhaps add a explanatory note in there saying that
an array with element size 32-bits is a "list of cells", since many
existing bindings describe things in terms of x cells of this, y cells
of that and so forth.

-- 
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