From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Gibson Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9 V3] Add documentation for the new DTS language. Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:12:03 +1100 Message-ID: <20100302231203.GO23435@yookeroo> References: <20080930145537.GJ18313@secretlab.ca> <20081001034656.GF30810@yookeroo.seuss> <20100222013004.GM29038@yookeroo> <9696D7A991D0824DBA8DFAC74A9C5FA305B2021A@az33exm25.fsl.freescale.net> <4288fc0b-79a4-42fd-9e77-573dbad79210@SG2EHSMHS004.ehs.local> <72f497af-412c-4a05-90c2-5df0be00d93f@VA3EHSMHS007.ehs.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <72f497af-412c-4a05-90c2-5df0be00d93f-+Ck8Kgl/v09CYczPSvLbDrjjLBE8jN/0@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: Stephen Neuendorffer Cc: Wood Scott-B07421 , devicetree-discuss-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, Yoder Stuart-B08248 , Jeremy Kerr , John Williams List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 02:17:47PM -0800, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: glikely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org [mailto:glikely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of G= rant Likely > > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:49 PM > > To: Stephen Neuendorffer > > Cc: Yoder Stuart-B08248; Wood Scott-B07421; devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.o= rg; John Williams; Jeremy Kerr > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9 V3] Add documentation for the new DTS language. [snip] > > This is never legal. If deleting by label, it must be at the top > > level. It doesn't make sense to use a label reference inside a node > > block, since the node block is already supposed to define where you > > are working in the tree. > > = > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0delete(bar); // May or may not be Illegal, since don't= know what bar-label references > > = > > No longer an issue since the previous line is illegal. > > = > > Also, must be either delete-node() or delete-prop() since nodes and > > properties can use the same names. > = > So, is it true that a tree which is overlayed on another tree can be > independently verified to be independent of internal ordering? This > would be nice if so. Hrm, yes and no. Most of our tests for duplicate labels and so forth are only performed after all the overlay/merging is completed. Which brings up another inconsistency in the current processing. Although: / { foo =3D "bar"; foo =3D "baz"; }; is illegal and will cause an error, the way that merge_nodes() is implemented means that the following will be accepted: / { }; / { foo =3D "bar"; foo =3D "baz"; }; (and the foo property will have the final value "baz"). -- = 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