Re: [DTC PATCH] Add support for decimal, octal and binary based cell values.

On Feb 15, 2007, at 4:14 PM, David Gibson wrote:

On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 12:41:50PM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:

quoted

On Feb 15, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:

quoted

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: linuxppc-dev-bounces+b08248=freescale.com@ozlabs.org
[mailto:linuxppc-dev-bounces+b08248=freescale.com@ozlabs.org]
On Behalf Of Kumar Gala

[snip]

quoted

quoted

New syntax d#, b#, o# and h# allow for an explicit prefix
on cell values to specify their base.  Eg: <d# 123>

Signed-off-by: Jon Loeliger <redacted>

---

What are people's thoughts on supporting '0x' and '0X' for hex?

Are you saying allow d#1234, h#5678, and 0x5678?  Or use 0x instead
of h#?

I'm saying in addition to supporting the d#, h# notation.

The reason I'm suggesting support '0x' is its pretty natural from C
and I know there have been a number of times when I forget that all
int constants in .dts are hex.

I'd prefer not to do this.  I agree it would be nice in some ways, but
I'm worried that if people see 0x all over the place, they'll assume
that things without an 0x are decimal, which they can't be for
compatibility.

People don't know what to assume, I know I've made a number of errors  
when I forget that all numbers where hex.

I think we should change dtc to follow standard C conventions and do  
it now rather than later.

We've already introduced dtc version compatibilities issues.  I agree  
with Dan that we should fix this now while there are a small handful  
of .dts in existence and we can provide a compat mode flag that  
treats non-prefixed numbers as hex instead of decimal.

(in theory with that we can use dtc to convert old .dts into new .dts)

- k