Re: Proposal: new device-tree syntax and semantics for extendinginformation from included dts files

[Grant Likely <grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org>]

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:45:50AM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 04:41:59PM -0700, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote:
> > Personally, I hope to avoid replace and remove, since it is difficult to
> > tell if
> > assumptions about which nodes may be present in an included file if
> > parts of the tree
> > start getting removed.
> 
> Hrm, that's a point.  We may want to make a distinction between the
> operations "delete and give an error if it wasn't there before" and
> "delete if present".

We don't know if this is going to be an issue yet.  I suggest start
with choosing a stance that covers the path of least surprise (or at
least what we think is the path of least surprise), and add the syntax
for the other behaviour only if it is actually needed.

I say that when trying to delete a node, pitch an error (or warning)
if the target node doesn't exist.  When adding or overriding an node,
don't worry about whether or not an original exists (current behaviour).

g.