dtc: Simplify error handling for unparseable input

[Scott Wood]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:52:02AM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 05:10:07PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > It's generally nice to the user if you can report as many bugs as you can 
> > rather than fail on the first one.
> 
> Hrm, I guess.  There's only so far it's worth going to achieve that
> though.
> 
> > It's also nice to someone down the road trying to turn this code into a 
> > library if it passes return status up the call chain gracefully.
> 
> Can you think of any reason we'd want to do that? 

Anything that wants to do something automated with device tree source
that doesn't fit neatly into command-line execution.  Nothing specific.

> And that would require fixing so many other places that the two cases
> which do return an error (that's including binary includes) hardly
> signify.

Yeah, I just wanted to avoid going further down that path if possible.

I won't protest too loudly if the general consensus is to just die(),
though.

-Scott