On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 5:48 PM, David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 11:37:51AM -0700, Anton Staaf wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:25 AM, David Gibson >> <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: >> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 11:30:42PM -0700, Anton Staaf wrote: > [snip] >> > I supposed modifying your suggestion, but combining with our existing >> > convention for "reserved words" we could do: >> > >> > prop = /uint8/ <0xab 0xcd>; >> > >> > I don't love it, but it's about the best I've come up with yet. And >> > in particular it's probably the variant I'd be least upset to carry >> > around as legacy if we come up with a better way in future. >> >> Yes, I like this better than my suggestions of using !. I wasn't sure >> if the /.../ syntax was something that was going to be allowed in >> property definitions. One other option working from this could be: >> >> property = /size/ 8 <0xab 0xcd>; > > I quite like that idea.
OK, I can take a look at writing up a patch to add this. Unless it was something anyone else wanted to do. :) -Anton >> It has the advantage of limiting the number of reserved words created. >> It could also be: >> >> property = /type/ uint8 <0xab 0xcd>; > > Not so fond of this one. The "uint8" would have to be some new > lexical type - "identifed" probably, which we'd then have to look up. > >> Which would allow us to define new types for cell lists without adding >> new syntax. I'm not sure if this is too useful though because the >> only types that I can think of that are not summed up by their size >> are things like float and double... > > Yeah, it's my feeling that the < > symtax should remain for integer > arrays. If we need something for other types in future, we should > define new, distinct syntax for that when the time comes. > >> But it does have a nice look to >> it in my opinion. And I would assume that if the /type/ <typename> >> was left off it would default to a uint32_t cell list. So the >> additional verbosity of having to indicate it's a different type and >> what the type is will only be needed in a few instances. > > Yes. > > -- > David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code > david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ > | _way_ _around_! > http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson > _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss