Hi Simon

On 6/7/20 16:21, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Walter,

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 15:12, Walter Lozano <walter.loz...@collabora.com> wrote:
Based on several reports there is an increasing concern in the impact
of adding additional features to drivers based on compatible strings.
A good example of this situation is found in [1].

In order to reduce this impact and as an initial step for further
reduction, propose a new way to declare compatible strings, which allows
to only include the useful ones.
What are the useful ones?

The useful ones would be those that are used by the selected DTB by the current configuration. The idea of this patch is to declare all the possible compatible strings in a way that dtoc can generate code for only those which are going to be used, and in this way avoid lots of #ifdef like the ones shows in

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20200525202429.2146-1-ag...@denx.de/

The idea is to define compatible strings in a way to be easily parsed by
dtoc, which will be responsible to build struct udevice_id [] based on
the compatible strings present in the dtb.

Additional features can be easily added, such as define constants
depending on the presence of compatible strings, which allows to enable
code blocks only in such cases without the need of adding additional
configuration options.

[1] 
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20200525202429.2146-1-ag...@denx.de/

Signed-off-by: Walter Lozano <walter.loz...@collabora.com>
---
  tools/dtoc/dtb_platdata.py | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
I think dtoc should be able to parse the compatible strings as they
are today - e.g. see the tiny-dm stuff.


Yes, I agree. My idea is that dtoc parses compatible strings as they are today but also in this new way. The reason for this is to allow dtoc to generate the code to include the useful compatible strings. Of course, this only makes sense if the idea of generating the compatible string associated  code is accepted.

What do you think?

Regards,

Walter



Regards,
Simon

Reply via email to