On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:08:06 -0600
Rob Landley wrote:
> On 02/26/2013 07:36:14 PM, Kim Phillips wrote:
> > This updates scripts/dtc to upstream dtc commit 27cdc1b
>
> There's an upstream for dts?
dtc - the device tree compiler, yes.
> > "Added license header to dtc/libfdt/fdt.h and libfdt_env.
On 02/26/2013 07:36:14 PM, Kim Phillips wrote:
This updates scripts/dtc to upstream dtc commit 27cdc1b
There's an upstream for dts?
"Added license header to dtc/libfdt/fdt.h and libfdt_env.h"
from git://git.jdl.com/software/dtc.git.
That git repository has a Documentation directory with for
This updates scripts/dtc to upstream dtc commit 27cdc1b
"Added license header to dtc/libfdt/fdt.h and libfdt_env.h"
from git://git.jdl.com/software/dtc.git.
Signed-off-by: Kim Phillips
---
scripts/dtc/dtc.c | 3 --
scripts/dtc/fdtdump.c | 29 +--
scripts/dtc/li
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 03:42:35PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >Oh, that's strange. I'm pretty sure I've used -x assembler when I've
> >experimented with using cpp on dts manually before, and it seems to
> >have worked.
>
> Maybe you used "-x assembler-with-cpp"? That should work better ;
Oh, that's strange. I'm pretty sure I've used -x assembler when I've
experimented with using cpp on dts manually before, and it seems to
have worked.
Maybe you used "-x assembler-with-cpp"? That should work better ;-)
Or just use the "-traditional-cpp" option, i.e. "gcc -E -traditional-
cpp".
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:24:43AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 05:18 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> ...
> > And as stated elsewhere, cpp should be invoked with similar options to
> > the way it's done for asm files. A -D__DTS__ or something like that
> > would probably be a good idea t
On 10/10/2012 05:18 PM, David Gibson wrote:
...
> And as stated elsewhere, cpp should be invoked with similar options to
> the way it's done for asm files. A -D__DTS__ or something like that
> would probably be a good idea too, just in case some .h needs to be
> conditional on that.
Hmm. There ar
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 03:42:33PM -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 1:16 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:33:31AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> On 10/10/2012 10:16 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >>> On 10/10/2012 01:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 20
On 10/10/2012 1:16 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:33:31AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On 10/10/2012 10:16 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 10/10/2012 01:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 10:43:50PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2012, at 6:04
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 09:16:34AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 01:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 10:43:50PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
[snip]
> >> .h files include both structs and defines, which are fine for
> >> ordinary C code, but problematic in this cont
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 08:56:11AM -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 8:45 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > On 10/10/2012 12:23 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> >> On 10/10/2012 7:09 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> >>> On 10/09/2012 04:16 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/01/2012 12:39 PM, Jon Loelig
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:33:31AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 10:16 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > On 10/10/2012 01:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 10:43:50PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> >>> On Oct 9, 2012, at 6:04 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
[snip]
> > That's probab
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:45:40PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 12:23 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> > On 10/10/2012 7:09 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 ne
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 08:41:45AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 1:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 10:43:50PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
[snip]
> >> .h files include both structs and defines, which are fine for
> >> ordinary C code, but problematic in this co
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:22:02AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> 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, Steph
On 10/10/2012 8:45 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 12:23 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>> On 10/10/2012 7:09 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+c
On 10/10/2012 8:40 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> 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
On 10/10/2012 12:23 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 7:09 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
On 10/10/2012 11:18 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 11:19 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 10/10/2012 09:33 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On 10/10/2012 10:16 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 10/10/2012 01:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 10:43:50PM -0600, Warner Losh wro
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
On 10/10/2012 7:09 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
On 10/10/2012 11:19 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 09:33 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On 10/10/2012 10:16 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 10/10/2012 01:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 10:43:50PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Oct 9, 2012, at 6:04 PM, Scott
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 thin
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:
>> >>
On 10/10/2012 09:33 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 10:16 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 10/10/2012 01:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 10:43:50PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
On Oct 9, 2012, at 6:04 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 10/09/2012 06:20:53 PM, Mi
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: d
On 10/10/2012 10:16 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 01:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 10:43:50PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
>>>
>>> On Oct 9, 2012, at 6:04 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>
On 10/09/2012 06:20:53 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> On 10/9/2012 11:16 AM, Ste
On 10/10/2012 01:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 10:43:50PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 9, 2012, at 6:04 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 L
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-lovin
On Oct 10, 2012, at 1:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 10:43:50PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 9, 2012, at 6:04 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
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 10:43:50PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Oct 9, 2012, at 6:04 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
On Oct 9, 2012, at 6:04 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
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 th
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
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
wh
>
> What more do you think needs discussion re: dtc+cpp?
How not to abuse the ever-loving shit out of it? :-)
jdl
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majord
On 10/01/2012 11:56 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 10/01/2012 11:13 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 10/01/2012 10:09 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On 09/28/2012 04:25 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
From: Stephen Warren
This updates scripts/dtc to commit 317a5d9 "dtc: zero out new label
ob
>
> Seems dtc doesn't really have a maintainer.
Picking nits, let's be clear on that phraseology:
Seems dtc doesn't really have a maintainer
within the kernel repository.
Over in git.jdl.com land, there is a well established
maintainer for the upstream DTC.
> Probably makes more sense
On 10/01/2012 11:13 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/01/2012 10:09 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On 09/28/2012 04:25 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> From: Stephen Warren
>>>
>>> This updates scripts/dtc to commit 317a5d9 "dtc: zero out new label
>>> objects" from git://git.jdl.com/software/dtc.git.
>>>
On 10/01/2012 10:09 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 09/28/2012 04:25 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> From: Stephen Warren
>>
>> This updates scripts/dtc to commit 317a5d9 "dtc: zero out new label
>> objects" from git://git.jdl.com/software/dtc.git.
>>
>> This adds features such as:
>> * /bits/ syntax for
> From: Stephen Warren
>
> This updates scripts/dtc to commit 317a5d9 "dtc: zero out new label
> objects" from git://git.jdl.com/software/dtc.git.
>
> This adds features such as:
> * /bits/ syntax for cell data.
> * Math expressions within cell data.
> * The ability to delete properties or nodes
41 matches
Mail list logo
