From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 11:51:31 -0700 From: "Mark A. Greer" To: Hollis Blanchard Subject: Re: [RFC] consolidated libdt proposal Message-ID: <20060808185131.GA9231@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> <1155061510.30116.197.camel@basalt.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1155061510.30116.197.camel@basalt.austin.ibm.com> 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, Aug 08, 2006 at 01:25:10PM -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > 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? No, its just a preference to have it look similar to kernel code. > Do you have code that would be difficult to convert to > using > ft_set_prop(tree, "/node/prop", buf, buflen); > ? No. > > > 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. OK. Mark