Re: [PATCH 0/2] Character literal parsing

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

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:11 PM, David Brown <davidb-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24 2011, Anton Staaf wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:02 PM, David Brown <davidb-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     Does this mean that the dtc inside the kernel is going to be the
>>     required tool to use to build device trees?  This change doesn't change
>>     the DTB format, so it's as much of a concern, but was wondering if we're
>>     intending to keep things compatible.
>>
>>
>> To be honest, I don't know enough to say either way.  I am using the character
>> literals in a device tree that is used to configure a single firmware image for
>> multiple boards.  That device tree is not currently passed on to the kernel.
>>
>> Your question makes me think that there are two device tree compilers that I
>> should be paying attention to, is that the case?  Or was it a more general
>> comment about diverging from a historic syntax for device tree source files?
>
> Both, really.  There is a dtc at
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/galak/dtc.git but it seems
> older than the one in the kernel.

The kernel one is simply a copy of the upstream dtc.  You should craft
your patches against:

git://git.jdl.com/software/dtc.git

>
> Also, the dts form is defined in the ePAPR documents, and this would be
> a (minor) divergence from that.

dts is not set in stone, and is certainly subject to enhancements
providing it doesn't break existing users.

g.