From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Bonesio Subject: Re: dts and dtsi files on which I tested the syntax for my recent patch set. Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 22:06:00 -0700 Message-ID: <1287637560.4535.1524.camel@riker> References: <1287626916.4535.1511.camel@riker> <20101021031439.GE6227@yookeroo> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20101021031439.GE6227@yookeroo> 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: David Gibson Cc: devicetree-discuss List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 14:14 +1100, David Gibson wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 07:08:36PM -0700, John Bonesio wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 17:46 -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 03:22:17PM -0700, John Bonesio wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I have attached the two file I've used to test the new syntax from my > > > > patch set. These might help get a feel for how the syntax and the > > > > features work. > > > > > > heh, what you should actually do (because you have to anyway) is add > > > testcases for the new features to dtc in the tests directory. 'make > > > check' runs the test cases. > > > > > > > /remove-node/ &{soc/serial@2400}; /* an example of using a label rooted path */ > > > > > > As previously mentioned by David, this conflicts with the already > > > established convention of a path that does not start with a '/' means > > > use a value from the /aliases node. That ambiguity needs to > > > be avoided, so the syntax still needs some massaging. > > > > I think we should explore this a bit further. I just don't see in the > > lexer code where it would parse anything with the syntax > > &{alias/node/path} (except for my recent patch). > > > > I looked through the parser too, and it wasn't obvious where it would > > match '&' directly. > > > > Maybe I'm just missing it. > > No, we just weren't being clear. dtc does not itself expand aliases > in this way. However, it's a common convention in existing device > tree stuff. The OF interface will expand aliases in this way, as will > fdt_path_offset(). > > So it's not an actual ambiguity with existing syntax, but the fact > that your proposed syntax is subtley different from a common existing > device tree convention would violate least-surprise. Would it really? Isn't an alias and a label on a node pretty much the same concept? >