On 10/10/2012 10:09 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 10:15:17 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 10/09/2012 06:04 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>> > On 10/09/2012 06:20:53 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>> >> On 10/9/2012 11:16 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> >> > On 10/01/2012 12:39 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> What more do you think needs discussion re: dtc+cpp?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How not to abuse the ever-loving shit out of it? :-)
>> >> >
>> >> > Perhaps we can just handle this through the regular patch review
>> >> > process; I think it may be difficult to define and agree upon
>> exactly
>> >> > what "abuse" means ahead of time, but it's probably going to be easy
>> >> > enough to recognize it when one sees it?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> One of the ways it could get out of hand would be via "include
>> >> dependency hell". People will be tempted to reuse existing .h files
>> >> containing pin definitions, which, if history is a guide, will end up
>> >> depending on all sorts of other .h files.
>> >>
>> >> Another problem I often face with symbolic names is the difficulty of
>> >> figuring out what the numerical values really are (for debugging),
>> >> especially when .h files are in different subtrees from the files that
>> >> use the definitions, and when they use multiple macro levels and fancy
>> >> features like concatenation. Sometimes I think it's clearer just to
>> >> write the number and use a comment to say what it is.
>> >
>> > Both comments apply just as well to ordinary C code, and I don't think
>> > anyone would seriously suggest just using comments instead for C code.
>> >
>> > Is there a way to ask CPP to evaluate a macro in the context of the
>> > input file, rather than produce normal output? If not, I guess you
>> > could make a tool that creates a wrapper file that includes the main
>> > file and then evaluates the symbol you want.
>>
>> I'm not sure what "evaluate a macro in the context of the input file"
>> means. Macros are obviously already evaluated based on the current set
>> of macros defined by the file that's been processed or those it
>> included. Do you mean only allowing the use of macros in the current
>> file and not included files? What exactly would the wrapper you
>> mentioned do?
>
> I just meant a way for a developer to quickly ask the preprocessor what
> a particular macro expands to, rather than try to figure it out
> manually. I was not suggesting any change to normal operation.
Oh right. Well, the patch I proposed to the kernel was basically:
%.dtb: %.dtsp
cpp -E $< | dtc -o $@ -
A developer could run the same cpp -E command to find that out, or that
build rule could instead save the intermediate result rather than just
piping it, so you could just go read the file.
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
