On 09/25/2012 02:51:27 PM, Mark Brown wrote:

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 02:35:46PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:

quoted

Do you have an example of where you'd actually benefit from this?
I'd think most things could either be done reasonably well with
what's built into DTC (see what we've done in
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl), or would need math expression support in
DTC (or has that been added?).

The constant example is the magic numbers we need to embed into DTs  
for
things like interrupt modes, making them human readable would be a  
real
win.

Wasn't there a patch for named constant support in dtc a while back?
Hmm:  
https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/2012-January/011184.html

I'm not sure that going down the CPP path is better than the  
possibility of named constants having a different syntax from  
macros/functions.  It would be one thing if someone were actively  
working on the latter, but this paralysis seems to be a case of the  
perfect being the enemy of the good.

-Scott