Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 7/7] hw/arm/sysbus-fdt: remove qemu_fdt_setprop returned value check

[David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1709 bytes --]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 12:18:59PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote:
> Hi David,
> On 01/11/2016 03:45 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 03:13:25PM +0000, Eric Auger wrote:
> >> qemu_fdt_setprop self-exists in case of error hence no need to check
> >> the returned value.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@linaro.org>
> > 
> > This change is fine, but in general I'm disinclined to invest too much
> > in the qemu interfaces for manipulating flattened trees.
> > 
> > I think our device tree manipulation in qemu is now complicated enough
> > that we should move towards using an unflattened (i.e. pointer based)
> > DT representation inside qemu, which is generally more suitable for
> > complex manipulation.
> OK. Is there any user-space library available for un-flattened tree
> manipulation? I only found references to kernel unflattened tree
> manipulations (drivers/of/fdt.c, include/linux/of.h) and dtc flattree.c.

Not that I'm aware of.  I've sometimes thought of making one as
another companion project to dtc.  Or it would be reasonably
straightforward to build a qemu specific one using qemu's existing
list routines.

> Besides the indicated direction do I understand correctly that you do
> not reject the series?

Yes, that's correct.  I think working with unflattened trees is
something we should head towards somewhere in the future, but that's
certainly not a reason to hold up real improvements based on the
existing flattened tree code.

-- 
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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]