Re: [PATCH 0/2] Character literal parsing

Jon, what are your feelings on the proposed patch?  I'd love to get an
indication either way, should I continue to pursue this?

Thanks,
    Anton

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Anton Staaf [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Grant Likely [off-list ref]wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:11 PM, David Brown [off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jun 24 2011, Anton Staaf wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:02 PM, David Brown [off-list ref]

wrote:

quoted

quoted

    Does this mean that the dtc inside the kernel is going to be the
    required tool to use to build device trees?  This change doesn't

change

quoted

quoted

    the DTB format, so it's as much of a concern, but was wondering if

we're

quoted

quoted

    intending to keep things compatible.


To be honest, I don't know enough to say either way.  I am using the

character

quoted

quoted

literals in a device tree that is used to configure a single firmware

image for

quoted

quoted

multiple boards.  That device tree is not currently passed on to the

kernel.

quoted

quoted

Your question makes me think that there are two device tree compilers

that I

quoted

quoted

should be paying attention to, is that the case?  Or was it a more

general

quoted

quoted

comment about diverging from a historic syntax for device tree source

files?

quoted

Both, really.  There is a dtc at
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/galak/dtc.git but it

seems

quoted

older than the one in the kernel.

The kernel one is simply a copy of the upstream dtc.  You should craft
your patches against:

git://git.jdl.com/software/dtc.git

quoted

Also, the dts form is defined in the ePAPR documents, and this would be
a (minor) divergence from that.

dts is not set in stone, and is certainly subject to enhancements
providing it doesn't break existing users.

Adding character literals does not (as far as I can tell) conflict with any
existing syntax.  All exiting dts files should compile to the exact same
blobs with my patches.  And of coarse, all of the existing test cases pass
cleanly.  It would also be a good idea for me to add test cases for
character literals.  I will do that and update the patch set if we decide to
accept the change to the syntax.

-Anton