From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:29:07 +1100 From: David Gibson To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: macros and dtc Message-ID: <20070219232907.GA17818@localhost.localdomain> References: <729E7ED6-D601-4D4C-B110-F951409BAE2B@kernel.crashing.org> <1171915484.18571.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1171915484.18571.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> Cc: Linux PPC Dev ML , Jon Loeliger List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 07:04:44AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > I could envision using something like cpp with #include > > to get some standard SOC block properties, but macros > > that try to account for board variations could be quite > > complex. > > For things like SoC, what I'd like is a way via #include or macros, > whatever, to layout in a part of the tree a standard block, and then, be > able to "overlay" on top of it. Yes, certainly macros on their own wouldn't be very useful for SoCs or standard boards. But macros plus overlays should be quite useful. > I can see other uses for macros for things like making easier to build > interrupt-map properties for example, especially since most embedded > boards use standard swizzling -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson