From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: dtc expressions Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:40:13 -0600 Message-ID: <4F60BBDD.2000807@wwwdotorg.org> References: <20120314144611.GZ24916@truffala.fritz.box> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120314144611.GZ24916-MK4v0fQdeXQXU02nzanrWNbf9cGiqdzd@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: David Gibson Cc: devicetree-discuss List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 03/14/2012 08:46 AM, David Gibson wrote: > So, in order to actually make progress on the dtc expressions / macros > / whatnot stuff, I really think I should dust off my integer (constant) > expressions patch, and we can apply that. > > While we still have disagreements on a bunch of stuff here, I think > we're at least agreed on what integer expressions should look like. > And even if we change approaches later (e.g. to your ifs and fors in > dtc approach) the integer expression syntax won't change, only the > implementation. I'd love to see something like that. I've don't think I've actually looked through your patches for that yet; I briefly looked at Jon's since they're in a branch in the dtc repo, but I don't think I managed to track down the patches you sent for this.