From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:59:21 -0500
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] using a flat device tree to drive u-boot config
In-Reply-To: <f8328f7c0807281105o13defccbt2a0a0321bbb4a46a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A8499417-7011-4DFA-B453-B6C05EC6AEAB@kernel.crashing.org>	
	<f8328f7c0807281028u76d692bbt75f4ae953afc09ed@mail.gmail.com>	
	<488E02C7.5000106@freescale.com>	
	<f8328f7c0807281035rc9f6b69l3ab88980d0f6db5e@mail.gmail.com>	
	<488E053A.40205@freescale.com>
	<f8328f7c0807281105o13defccbt2a0a0321bbb4a46a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <488E1709.9090707@freescale.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Ben Warren wrote:
> Uh, yeah.  I like the idea of a central repo for hardware info, and
> the device tree concept is good.  My point is that the syntax, while
> concise and exact, can be intimidating.  Just look at the amount of
> traffic on the mailing lists of people that don't understand what all
> the fields mean when specifying IRQs etc.  Anything we can do to make
> it less so for noobies is a good thing for everybody.

Sure, no argument there -- enhancing the dts syntax with symbolic 
constants, computational expressions, and macros should make things like 
interrupt specifiers and maps a lot clearer.

-Scott