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

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

On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 07:16:57PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:19 PM, David Gibson
> > <david-xT8FGy+AXnRB3Ne2BGzF6laj5H9X9Tb+@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 04:50:48PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> >>> Grant Likely wrote:
> >>> >On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Scott Wood <scottwood-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >>> >>Hmm, I'd think it would be useful to e.g. include a template and
> >>> >>subsequently modify it within the same node, rather than a more verbose and
> >>> >>error-prone process of referencing labels later.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>If sequential operations within a tree are supported, I'm not sure that
> >>> >>there's any remaining need for separate top-level trees -- you could express
> >>> >>the same thing as top-level property/node redefinitions.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>What are the problems with supporting this?
> >>> >
> >>> >The main problem is that it doesn't fit the use cases I need to solve.
> >>> > I need to start with a 'stock' or 'vanilla' tree, and then add into
> >>> >it board details.  ie. lay down a generic MPC5200 tree (include a .dts
> >>> >file), and then fill it in with i2c and spi devices.  Or include the
> >>> >.dts file generated by the XIlinx FPGA toolchain, and then populate it
> >>> >with board details.  Sequential operations within the tree doesn't do
> >>> >anything to support this use case because the board level fixups will
> >>> >be applied all over the tree.
> >>> >
> >>> >To reverse the question, what is the use case that is best solved with
> >>> >sequential operations within the root tree?
> >>>
> >>> The case I had in mind was having includable templates for fragments
> >>> of the tree, rather than starting with a generic full tree.  Though
> >>> I'd probably end up wanting things like template arguments and math
> >>> as well (is any existing macro language going to do cell
> >>> arithmetic?),
> >>
> >> m4 can do arithmetic, but it's pretty hideous.  But I still have
> >> allowing expressions as a reasonable extension within dtc itself.
> >> Macros or templates with parameters raise a lot more complex issues.
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>> >>If you don't reuse the label, but bar is redefined, where does bar-label
> >>> >>point?
> >>> >
> >>> >It doesn't point to anything because when a property is deleted, the
> >>> >label also goes away.
> >>>
> >>> Is it the same way with node labels?
> >>
> >> Yes, node labels are attached to the node, so if the node is removed,
> >> so is the label.
> >>
> >>> What happens to previous
> >>> references?  Is it detected by dtc, or does a bad phandle/path stick
> >>> around to be found at runtime?  And what if the node is added back?
> >>
> >> References aren't resolved until the whole tree is built.  So
> >> references will always resolve to the *last* definition of a label,
> >> and if the last "definition" is an undefinition / deletion, then the
> >> references will fail to resolve and give an error.
> >
> > ...except for when processing node redefinitions by label in the current patch.
> 
> In fact, I think this has to be the case, otherwise it would be
> possible to create circular references in node redefiniton.

Ah, yes.  Node redefinition references act in order with the labels.
Which is a potentially nasty inconsistency.  Ugh.

-- 
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