From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] dtc: integrate gpp Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:12:40 -0600 Message-ID: <4FF35238.5090501@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1339786432-6435-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <4FEB7DFE.3030509@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FEB7DFE.3030509-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@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" To: Jon Loeliger , David Gibson Cc: devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 06/27/2012 03:41 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 06/15/2012 12:53 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> From: Stephen Warren >> >> I figured the easiest way to get named constants into dtc would be to >> re-use an existing C pre-processor implemntation. Surprisingly, I could >> not find many /good/ possibilities for this. I eventually found one called >> gpp. This patch is an extremely quick-and-dirty integration of gpp into >> dtc in order to solicit some feedback. What do people think of this >> approach in general? > > David, Jon, > > What do you think of integrating gpp (or is there some alternative that > would be better)? Does it seem a reasonable approach; should I work on > addressing the TODO items I mentioned in the patch, or give up on this? Are there any comments on this? Thanks.