On 10/10/2012 11:09 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > On 10/09/2012 04:16 PM, 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? > > Rather than repeating things over and over in reviews, we should > document at least rules we can easily agree on and then add to it when > people get "creative." Also, I can't keep up with every single binding > review as is, and this could just add another level of complexity to the > review. A few off the top of my head and from the thread discussion: > > - Headers must be self contained with no outside (i.e. libc, kernel, > etc.) header dependencies. > - No kernel kconfig option usage > - No gcc built-in define usage > - No unused items (i.e. externs, structs, etc.)
> - No macro concatenation That seems to be potentially a very useful feature; I have no idea why we would ban that; it isn't banned in C code in the kernel is it? > - No macros for strings or property names Property names I can understand. Property values - I can perhaps see a use-case for... _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss