[U-Boot-Users] libfdt release?

[Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>]

David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 09:21:54PM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> Guys,
>>>
>>> Can you tell me where we stand on changes/additions to libfdt vs u- 
>>> boot.  I'd really like to see an updated libfdt imported into u-boot  
>>> for the next window and am happy to work on the u-boot modifications  
>>> as long as I understand what exactly they are.
>>>
>>> Having fdt_get_name() and fdt_get_path() will be really useful for  
>>> some fixup of device node code I've got and will allow us to drop the  
>>> hard coded/explicit PATHs to nodes from <config.h>.
>>>
>>> I'd rather see us take a clean libfdt drop rather than pulling in  
>>> bits and pieces.
>> Yes, that would be nice but the libfdt for U-Boot may still need to be 
>> extended, especially for dynamic configuration. Therefore I would 
>> appreciate a discussion on what else we need for that purpose and how we 
>> handle (separate) common and extended libfdt functions for U-Boot. For 
> 
> Again, I'm happy to add functionality to core libfdt if u-boot needs
> it (as long as it isn't fundamentally u-boot specific, of course).

The functions below are not really U-Boot specific.

>> the dynamic configuration, I'm clearly in favor of function names 
>> similar to the one commonly used in Linux (with the prefix fdt:):
>>
>>   of_find_node_by_path
>>   of_find_node_by_type
>>   of_find_node_by_phandle
>>   of_find_compatible_node
>>   of_device_is_compatible
>>   of_get_property
> 
> Tough.  The names I have are staying for the reasons I've already
> mentioned.  And because I want to keep the libfdt API reasonably
> stable.

OK, just my personal opinion on gratuitous name changes. What functions 
are missing in the libfdt? How can I help to get them ported to the 
generic libfdt?

Wolfgang.