using a flat device tree to drive u-boot config]

Uh, yeah. I like the idea of a central repo for hardware info, and the device tree concept is good. My point is that the syntax, while concise and exact, can be intimidating. Just look at the amount of traffic on the mailing lists of people that don't understand what all the fields mean when specifying IRQs etc. Anything we can do to make it less so for noobies is a good thing for everybody.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] using a flat device tree to drive u-boot config
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:59:21 -0500
From: Scott Wood <[email protected]>
To: Ben Warren <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected] Users <[email protected]>, Kumar Gala <[email protected]>

Quoted 6 lines · Ben Warren

Uh, yeah. I like the idea of a central repo for hardware info, and the device tree concept is good. My point is that the syntax, while concise and exact, can be intimidating. Just look at the amount of traffic on the mailing lists of people that don't understand what all the fields mean when specifying IRQs etc. Anything we can do to make it less so for noobies is a good thing for everybody.

Sure, no argument there -- enhancing the dts syntax with symbolic constants, computational expressions, and macros should make things like interrupt specifiers and maps a lot clearer.

Heh, I guess with the new dtc release out, I should have a serious look at getting the long-mooted expression support ready to merge.

Quoted 2 lines · David Gibson

Heh, I guess with the new dtc release out, I should have a serious look at getting the long-mooted expression support ready to merge.

Well, I'm likely to work in this direction too.

I think one of the first things that we might do is to convert the DTC to a two pass tool where the first pass just parses and creates an internal node structure, and the second pass traverses it writing it out.