> >> That raises the question of whether it's legal to delete things that aren't > >> there. > > > > It isn't currently, which seems sane to me. > > > >> There may be cases where a dts fragment A doesn't know whether > >> fragment B will have defined something, and fragment A wants to make sure it > >> ends up undefined one way or another. > > > > Later fragments should always override earlier ones. So if A is > > defined before B, then B can override anything that A does. > > Sorry for the confusing enumeration -- A comes after B. > > To put it in more concrete terms, suppose you're writing an update wrapper > around the autogenerated FPGA dts. In some configurations a given node/property > will be autogenerated, in others not -- but you want the wrapper to make sure > it's gone, because it doesn't work with the system the FPGA is connected to. > > If it's an error to delete something that doesn't exist, you'd have to have two > update trees, first adding/replacing the thing in question to make sure it's > there, and the second to delete it. > > Allowing such an operation also lines up better with your suggestion to think of > it as masking, rather than deleting.
FWIW, I tend to agree with Scott... I find it more natural to think of deletion as a well-defined total function, rather than as an operation which may fail. Steve This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
