[U-Boot-Users] libfdt release?

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

On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 09:21:54PM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Kumar Gala wrote:
> >Guys,
> >
> >Can you tell me where we stand on changes/additions to libfdt vs u- 
> >boot.  I'd really like to see an updated libfdt imported into u-boot  
> >for the next window and am happy to work on the u-boot modifications  
> >as long as I understand what exactly they are.
> >
> >Having fdt_get_name() and fdt_get_path() will be really useful for  
> >some fixup of device node code I've got and will allow us to drop the  
> >hard coded/explicit PATHs to nodes from <config.h>.
> >
> >I'd rather see us take a clean libfdt drop rather than pulling in  
> >bits and pieces.
> 
> Yes, that would be nice but the libfdt for U-Boot may still need to be 
> extended, especially for dynamic configuration. Therefore I would 
> appreciate a discussion on what else we need for that purpose and how we 
> handle (separate) common and extended libfdt functions for U-Boot. For 

Again, I'm happy to add functionality to core libfdt if u-boot needs
it (as long as it isn't fundamentally u-boot specific, of course).

> the dynamic configuration, I'm clearly in favor of function names 
> similar to the one commonly used in Linux (with the prefix fdt:):
> 
>   of_find_node_by_path
>   of_find_node_by_type
>   of_find_node_by_phandle
>   of_find_compatible_node
>   of_device_is_compatible
>   of_get_property

Tough.  The names I have are staying for the reasons I've already
mentioned.  And because I want to keep the libfdt API reasonably
stable.

-- 
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