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 16:42:06 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1222460748-20127-3-git-send-email-jdl@jdl.com> <20081001034656.GF30810@yookeroo.seuss> <20100222013004.GM29038@yookeroo> <9696D7A991D0824DBA8DFAC74A9C5FA305B2021A@az33exm25.fsl.freescale.net> <4288fc0b-79a4-42fd-9e77-573dbad79210@SG2EHSMHS004.ehs.local> <72f497af-412c-4a05-90c2-5df0be00d93f@VA3EHSMHS007.ehs.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <72f497af-412c-4a05-90c2-5df0be00d93f-+Ck8Kgl/v09CYczPSvLbDrjjLBE8jN/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: Yoder Stuart-B08248 , Jeremy Kerr , devicetree-discuss-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, John Williams , Wood Scott-B07421 List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote: > From: glikely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org [mailto:glikely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Gra= nt Likely >> reworked to use nodes: >> foo { >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 bar-label: bar { >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 prop =3D 2; >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 delete(bar); // should be illegal >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 }; >> }; > > Um, my original intent was: > foo { > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 bar-label: bar { > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 prop =3D 2; > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 }; > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 delete(bar); // should be illegal > }; Ah, yes. And you are right, that should be illegal. > So, is it true that a tree which is overlayed on another tree can be inde= pendently verified to > be independent of internal ordering? =A0This would be nice if so. Yes, I think that is a valid statement, with the assumption that label references at the top level are first resolved. >> Not sure I follow. =A0It certainly isn't be valid to apply a label to a >> command like delete(). > > But the best thing of the above is that there is no longer a distinction = between commands and data! > delete is just a tag which gets interpreted during 'reduction' or 'overla= y'. > > For instance, deleting a subnode could be: > > foo { > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0bar { > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0delete; > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0} > } > > I guess this ends up conflicting with a property named 'delete' though. Right. It should be something syntactically distinct. g. -- = Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.