[Fwd: Re: [U-Boot-Users] using a flat device tree to drive u-boot config]

[Fwd: Re: [U-Boot-Users] using a flat device tree to drive u-boot config]

[Jon Loeliger]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] using a flat device tree to drive u-boot config
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:59:21 -0500
From: Scott Wood <scottwood-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org>
To: Ben Warren <biggerbadderben-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
CC: u-boot-users-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Users <u-boot-users-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org>, Kumar Gala <galak-XVmvHMARGAS8U2dJNN8I7kB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>

Ben Warren wrote:
> Uh, yeah.  I like the idea of a central repo for hardware info, and
> the device tree concept is good.  My point is that the syntax, while
> concise and exact, can be intimidating.  Just look at the amount of
> traffic on the mailing lists of people that don't understand what all
> the fields mean when specifying IRQs etc.  Anything we can do to make
> it less so for noobies is a good thing for everybody.

Sure, no argument there -- enhancing the dts syntax with symbolic 
constants, computational expressions, and macros should make things like 
interrupt specifiers and maps a lot clearer.

-Scott

Re: [Fwd: Re: [U-Boot-Users] using a flat device tree to drive u-boot config]

[David Gibson]

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 09:27:11AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] using a flat device tree to drive u-boot config
> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:59:21 -0500
> From: Scott Wood <scottwood-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org>
> To: Ben Warren <biggerbadderben-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> CC: u-boot-users-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Users <u-boot-users-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org>, Kumar Gala <galak-XVmvHMARGAS8U2dJNN8I7kB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>
>
> Ben Warren wrote:
>> Uh, yeah.  I like the idea of a central repo for hardware info, and
>> the device tree concept is good.  My point is that the syntax, while
>> concise and exact, can be intimidating.  Just look at the amount of
>> traffic on the mailing lists of people that don't understand what all
>> the fields mean when specifying IRQs etc.  Anything we can do to make
>> it less so for noobies is a good thing for everybody.
>
> Sure, no argument there -- enhancing the dts syntax with symbolic  
> constants, computational expressions, and macros should make things like  
> interrupt specifiers and maps a lot clearer.

Heh, I guess with the new dtc release out, I should have a serious
look at getting the long-mooted expression support ready to merge.

-- 
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

Re: [Fwd: Re: [U-Boot-Users] using a flat device tree to drive u-boot config]

[Jon Loeliger]

David Gibson wrote:

> Heh, I guess with the new dtc release out, I should have a serious
> look at getting the long-mooted expression support ready to merge.
> 


Well, I'm likely to work in this direction too.

I think one of the first things that we might do
is to convert the DTC to a two pass tool where the
first pass just parses and creates an internal node
structure, and the second pass traverses it writing
it out.

jdl

Re: [Fwd: Re: [U-Boot-Users] using a flat device tree to drive u-boot config]

[David Gibson]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 04:15:06PM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
> David Gibson wrote:
>
>> Heh, I guess with the new dtc release out, I should have a serious
>> look at getting the long-mooted expression support ready to merge.
>
>
> Well, I'm likely to work in this direction too.
>
> I think one of the first things that we might do
> is to convert the DTC to a two pass tool where the
> first pass just parses and creates an internal node
> structure, and the second pass traverses it writing
> it out.

Um.. I'm not really sure what you mean by this.  The most obvious
meaning to me, we already do...

-- 
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