Re: [PATCH 8/9 V3] Add documentation for the new DTS language.

[David Gibson <david-xT8FGy+AXnRB3Ne2BGzF6laj5H9X9Tb+@public.gmane.org>]

On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 03:46:02PM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 13:50 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> > In message: <20081002152242.GB22258-VKaLA/mbEU932VTgPCOETVjVikpgYyvb5NbjCUgZEJk@public.gmane.org>
> >             Scott Wood <scottwood-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org> writes:
> > : On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 11:18:00AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > : > > I vote against anything similar to the C preprocessor.
> > : > 
> > : > Why?
> > : 
> > : It's not nearly as powerful as the semantic approach, and it is
> > : syntactically clumsy (I do *not* want to have to put a backslash at the
> > : end of every line within a macro, for example).
> > 
> > And there are no looping constructs at all in CPP.  You flat out can't
> > do a generalized for loop with the macro language, for example.  Its
> > symbols also do not map 1-1/onto symbols used by the dts files.  It
> > can only grok macros you define for it, so it has no way of knowing
> > many useful things that dts just knows.
> > 
> > Basically, it is using a hammer to pound screws in.  Sure, it seems to
> > work, but the results are shoddy.
> > 
> > Warner
> 
> Also, it  might be worth noting that if one uses "-I dts -O dts"
> with my patch set, it is pretty-darn similar behavior to a simple
> pre-processing pass that simply expands the original constructs
> into a flat DTS file like we have today.

Sorry, I don't see the relevance of this.

-- 
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