On 09/25/2012 02:51:27 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 02:35:46PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
