From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] ARM: use C pre-processor with dtc Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:05:28 +0100 Message-ID: <20120925200528.GK4428@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <20120925195127.GA19350@sirena.org.uk> <1348603151.5565.20@snotra> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1348603151.5565.20@snotra> 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: Scott Wood Cc: Stephen Warren , devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, Rob Herring , Russell King , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 02:59:11PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On 09/25/2012 02:51:27 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >The constant example is the magic numbers we need to embed into > >DTs for > >things like interrupt modes, making them human readable would be a > >real > >win. > Wasn't there a patch for named constant support in dtc a while back? > Hmm: https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/2012-January/011184.html > I'm not sure that going down the CPP path is better than the > possibility of named constants having a different syntax from > macros/functions. It would be one thing if someone were actively > working on the latter, but this paralysis seems to be a case of the > perfect being the enemy of the good. I don't know, it doesn't appear to have been integrated (and we still need to be able to or things together).