From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9 V3] Add documentation for the new DTS language. Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:25:04 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1222460748-20127-3-git-send-email-jdl@jdl.com> <20080930145537.GJ18313@secretlab.ca> <20081001034656.GF30810@yookeroo.seuss> <20100222013004.GM29038@yookeroo> <9696D7A991D0824DBA8DFAC74A9C5FA305B2021A@az33exm25.fsl.freescale.net> <4288fc0b-79a4-42fd-9e77-573dbad79210@SG2EHSMHS004.ehs.local> <4B8C2C4C.8070901@freescale.com> <4d16ecf4-27b2-4c73-a3be-5b2a8ff95820@VA3EHSMHS010.ehs.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4d16ecf4-27b2-4c73-a3be-5b2a8ff95820-+Ck8Kgl/v0+J1bAq5m18RLjjLBE8jN/0@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: Stephen Neuendorffer Cc: Wood Scott-B07421 , devicetree-discuss-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, Yoder Stuart-B08248 , Scott Wood , Jeremy Kerr , John Williams List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote: > From: Scott Wood [mailto:scottwood-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org] >> If sequential operations within a tree are supported, I'm not sure > that there's >> any remaining need for separate top-level trees -- you could express > the same >> thing as top-level property/node redefinitions. > > I agree, *IF* sequential operations are supported. > But then you have a sequential programming language, not a structured > data > description. =A0I think this is a bad idea. Indeed. We've got lots of sequential programming languages. I don't want us to create for ourselves a new (and poorly implemented) language. >> I'd rather make them actually behave like immediate commands, though. > > But the question is, what is the semantics of the 'command language' > (where ordering matters) > from the 'structure language' (where ordering is unimportant). =A0My > suggestion is to cleanly separate > these two. =A0The only ordering that is defined is between sequential > trees. =A0Within a sequential tree, > only things which have the same meaning in any ordering of sub-nodes and > properties should be allowed. Yes, I think I agree with this. The only ordering that matters is the ordering of top level node redefinition blocks. >> > Which brings up the question 'undeletion question'. =A0Can you do: >> > >> > d-label: delete(bar); >> > delete(&d-label); >> >> I'd say no -- delete operates on data, not commands. > > This implies that data and commands are different. =A0And commands have to > be ordered, which means that you have > to keep the order of everything under a node, which chucks alot of the > beauty of device trees, IMHO. Right, well said. I think the right thing to do is to avoid the concept of commands entirely from the tree. g. -- = Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.