From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [RFC] consolidated libdt proposal From: Hollis Blanchard To: "Mark A. Greer" In-Reply-To: <20060808180408.GD6079@mag.az.mvista.com> References: <20060719230544.GD3887@mag.az.mvista.com> <1154911082.27074.104.camel@diesel> <1154987921.24455.32.camel@basalt.austin.ibm.com> <20060808180408.GD6079@mag.az.mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:25:10 -0500 Message-Id: <1155061510.30116.197.camel@basalt.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Pantelis Antoniou , linuxppc-embedded , "xen-ppc-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 11:04 -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote: > > Except for not being able to extend a property (see below), > I think it does meet my needs (at least as I know them today). Great. > However, I was hoping to keep the interfaces in the bootwrapper > similar to the ones used in the kernel. To that end, I had a > routine to find a device node and other routines to find and modify > a property within that node. I didn't notice a "finddevice" type of > function to find a device node. Would you have a problem adding one? The way property modification works now is this: p = ft_get_prop(tree, "/xen/console/interrupts", &len); if ((NULL == p) || (len != foolen)) return; *p = cpu_to_be32(foo); (That does need to be hidden in a yet-to-be-written ft_set_prop().) If necessary, it looks like it would be possible to modify ft_get_prop() to return a pointer to the beginning of the node structure, but is it really necessary? Do you have code that would be difficult to convert to using ft_set_prop(tree, "/node/prop", buf, buflen); ? > > One limitation of the attached code is that it doesn't support changing > > the *size* of properties, though I don't think that would be too > > difficult to add if needed. > > If we're going to allow cmdline editing in the bootwrapper, we would > need to extend the size of a property. We've never really talked about > cmdline editing in the powerpc branch but I assume that its a good > thing(tm). I know I would like to have it so, IMHO, I think we should > add it (and therefore require extending a property). I agree, and it shouldn't be too much work. I'll take a look later this week, if nobody else has. -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center