Re: [PATCH v2] dtc: Add support for named integer constants

[Grant Likely <grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org>]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:09:27AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > Stephen Warren wrote at Tuesday, August 30, 2011 3:30 PM:
> >> You may define constants as follows:
> >>
> >> /define/ TWO 2;
> >> /define/ FOUR 4;
> >> /define/ OTHER FOUR;
> >>
> >> And properties may use these values as follows:
> >>
> >> foo = <1 TWO 3 FOUR 5>;
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> >
> > David, Jon,
> >
> > Does this seem reasonable?
> >
> > I think the syntax is simple enough it wouldn't interfere with any more
> > advanced expression/function/... support in the future, and it could be
> > easily extended to allow e.g.:
> >
> > /define/ FOO "BAR";
> > /define/ BAX [0af8dacb0];
> > ...
> 
> This seems very reasonable to me, and very useful. From the syntax it
> looks like lower case symbols are allowed also, which is fine with me.
> 
> I hope that this can go into dtc as we would definitely use it.

What are the risks of symbol conflict with this approach?  I'm
concerned that a poorly chosen /define/ name will break parsing in
non-obvious ways.  Would it be better to have a every define reference
to be explicit in the syntax?

g.