Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 01/17] fdt: Tidy up a few fdtdec problems
On 12/02/2011 07:11 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
...
+int fdtdec_get_is_enabled(const void *blob, int node)
{
const char *cell;
cell = fdt_getprop(blob, node, status, NULL);
if (cell)
- return 0 == strcmp(cell, ok);
- return default_val;
+ return 0 == strcmp(cell, okay);
+ return 1;
}
The kernel accepts both okay (standard) and ok (non-standard). I assume
the latter is required for some in-use-but-technically-incorrect .dts
files. I imagine U-Boot should act like the kernel here.
(Sorry if I wasn't clear here before; that's certainly what I intended
to mean)
--
nvpublic
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 01/17] fdt: Tidy up a few fdtdec problems
Hi Stephen,
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@nvidia.com wrote:
On 12/02/2011 07:11 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
...
+int fdtdec_get_is_enabled(const void *blob, int node)
{
const char *cell;
cell = fdt_getprop(blob, node, status, NULL);
if (cell)
- return 0 == strcmp(cell, ok);
- return default_val;
+ return 0 == strcmp(cell, okay);
+ return 1;
}
The kernel accepts both okay (standard) and ok (non-standard). I assume
the latter is required for some in-use-but-technically-incorrect .dts
files. I imagine U-Boot should act like the kernel here.
Given that we are just starting out with fdt, do you think it would be
better to not bloat the code in this way? I don't mind either way -
just asking :-)
Regards,
Simon
(Sorry if I wasn't clear here before; that's certainly what I intended
to mean)
--
nvpublic
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 01/17] fdt: Tidy up a few fdtdec problems
On 12/05/2011 02:40 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@nvidia.com wrote:
On 12/02/2011 07:11 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
...
+int fdtdec_get_is_enabled(const void *blob, int node)
{
const char *cell;
cell = fdt_getprop(blob, node, status, NULL);
if (cell)
- return 0 == strcmp(cell, ok);
- return default_val;
+ return 0 == strcmp(cell, okay);
+ return 1;
}
The kernel accepts both okay (standard) and ok (non-standard). I assume
the latter is required for some in-use-but-technically-incorrect .dts
files. I imagine U-Boot should act like the kernel here.
Given that we are just starting out with fdt, do you think it would be
better to not bloat the code in this way? I don't mind either way -
just asking :-)
My point is that there are probably .dts files using ok instead of
okay or the kernel wouldn't support ok. People will probably want to
use those with U-Boot without changing anything else. So, U-Boot should
interpret the FDT in the same way as the kernel.
--
nvpublic
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 01/17] fdt: Tidy up a few fdtdec problems
Hi Stephen,
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@nvidia.com wrote:
On 12/05/2011 02:40 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@nvidia.com wrote:
On 12/02/2011 07:11 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
...
+int fdtdec_get_is_enabled(const void *blob, int node)
{
const char *cell;
cell = fdt_getprop(blob, node, status, NULL);
if (cell)
- return 0 == strcmp(cell, ok);
- return default_val;
+ return 0 == strcmp(cell, okay);
+ return 1;
}
The kernel accepts both okay (standard) and ok (non-standard). I assume
the latter is required for some in-use-but-technically-incorrect .dts
files. I imagine U-Boot should act like the kernel here.
Given that we are just starting out with fdt, do you think it would be
better to not bloat the code in this way? I don't mind either way -
just asking :-)
My point is that there are probably .dts files using ok instead of
okay or the kernel wouldn't support ok. People will probably want to
use those with U-Boot without changing anything else. So, U-Boot should
interpret the FDT in the same way as the kernel.
OK, how about:
return 0 == strncmp(cell, ok, 2);
(I do feel that if you do this sort of thing you end up with people
using 'ok' even in new fdts, since they look at code like this and
think it is fine)
Regards,
Simon
--
nvpublic
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 01/17] fdt: Tidy up a few fdtdec problems
On 12/05/2011 04:11 PM, Simon Glass wrote: Hi Stephen, On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@nvidia.com wrote: My point is that there are probably .dts files using ok instead of okay or the kernel wouldn't support ok. People will probably want to use those with U-Boot without changing anything else. So, U-Boot should interpret the FDT in the same way as the kernel. The kernel has to deal with real Open Firmware systems, some of which pass buggy trees. U-Boot should not blindly imitate all of Linux's workarounds. OK, how about: return 0 == strncmp(cell, ok, 2); (I do feel that if you do this sort of thing you end up with people using 'ok' even in new fdts, since they look at code like this and think it is fine) Indeed. -Scott ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 01/17] fdt: Tidy up a few fdtdec problems
On 12/05/2011 03:18 PM, Scott Wood wrote: On 12/05/2011 04:11 PM, Simon Glass wrote: Hi Stephen, On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@nvidia.com wrote: My point is that there are probably .dts files using ok instead of okay or the kernel wouldn't support ok. People will probably want to use those with U-Boot without changing anything else. So, U-Boot should interpret the FDT in the same way as the kernel. The kernel has to deal with real Open Firmware systems, some of which pass buggy trees. U-Boot should not blindly imitate all of Linux's workarounds. If it's certain that we'll never see anyone writing FDTs with ok in them instead of okay (because such FDTs were only autogenerated by Open Firmware), then I'm fine with the original code. OK, how about: return 0 == strncmp(cell, ok, 2); (I do feel that if you do this sort of thing you end up with people using 'ok' even in new fdts, since they look at code like this and think it is fine) That'd be buggy since it'd allow a lot more than ok/okay. A comment in the code would avoid the issue. -- nvpublic ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 01/17] fdt: Tidy up a few fdtdec problems
Hi Stephen, On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@nvidia.com wrote: On 12/05/2011 03:18 PM, Scott Wood wrote: On 12/05/2011 04:11 PM, Simon Glass wrote: Hi Stephen, On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@nvidia.com wrote: My point is that there are probably .dts files using ok instead of okay or the kernel wouldn't support ok. People will probably want to use those with U-Boot without changing anything else. So, U-Boot should interpret the FDT in the same way as the kernel. The kernel has to deal with real Open Firmware systems, some of which pass buggy trees. U-Boot should not blindly imitate all of Linux's workarounds. If it's certain that we'll never see anyone writing FDTs with ok in them instead of okay (because such FDTs were only autogenerated by Open Firmware), then I'm fine with the original code. OK, how about: return 0 == strncmp(cell, ok, 2); (I do feel that if you do this sort of thing you end up with people using 'ok' even in new fdts, since they look at code like this and think it is fine) That'd be buggy since it'd allow a lot more than ok/okay. A comment in the code would avoid the issue. Hmm, ok I will revert to okay and add a comment. Regards, Simon -- nvpublic ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
