From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Bonesio Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implements new features for updating existing device tree nodes. Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 06:45:47 -0700 Message-ID: <1287236747.4535.1424.camel@riker> References: <20101016010732.4855.52273.stgit@riker> <1287199277.4535.1423.camel@riker> <20101016064744.GD5036@yookeroo> <20101016081012.GH653@angua.secretlab.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20101016081012.GH653-MrY2KI0G/OVr83L8+7iqerDks+cytr/Z@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: Grant Likely Cc: devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2010-10-16 at 02:10 -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 05:47:44PM +1100, David Gibson wrote: > > 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. > > Yes, because I need the ability to remove/replace a child of a > labelled node. Not every node that needs to be manipulated will > necessarily have a label. > > For example; I could have a labelled spi bus node with child nodes for > each of the spi devices. I want to be able to remove/replace the > child nodes without having to label them first. > > g. > Why not just add the label to the node you need first? - John