Re: [PATCH] Add support for binary includes.

So, like, the other day Scott Wood mumbled:

quoted

Can I ask; what is the intended usage of such a thing?  How large
would a typical binary blob be?

I use it for embedding guest device trees in a hypervisor's device tree.

Why wouldn't we instead, say, extend the source sytax
to allow a sub-tree or an embedded tree, rather than
obscuring an opaque form of that guest device tree?

Thanks,
jdl

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:24:56AM -0600, Jon Loeliger wrote:

So, like, the other day Scott Wood mumbled:

quoted

quoted

Can I ask; what is the intended usage of such a thing?  How large
would a typical binary blob be?

I use it for embedding guest device trees in a hypervisor's device tree.

Why wouldn't we instead, say, extend the source sytax
to allow a sub-tree or an embedded tree, rather than
obscuring an opaque form of that guest device tree?

That was what I tried initially, but the implementation was much more
complicated, and path references are problematic.

-Scott