On Feb 12, 2008 3:02 PM, Corey Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2008 3:15 PM, ron minnich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2008 11:13 AM, Peter Stuge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > mainboard-vendor = "Emulation";
> > > > mainboard-name = "QEMU x86";
Sure, I am fine with that. Comments?
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED],0 {
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED],0 --> dev 1 function 0
>
> why shorten device to dev and not fuction to func? is it possible to set it
> up so people/developers can use either dev or device?
I confused you. This line
> [EMAIL PROTECTED],0 --> dev 1 function 0
is an explanatory comment. It is not in the dts. Here is the dts again.
/{
mainboard-vendor = "Emulation";
mainboard-name = "QEMU x86";
constructor = "qemuvga_constructors";
cpus {};
[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
/config/("northbridge/intel/i440bxemulation/dts");
[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 {
};
[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 {
/config/("southbridge/intel/i82371eb/dts");
};
};
};
};
That's the whole file.
Let's try to bring this to closure. The score so far.
Stepan: is ok with '@' syntax (as are segher etc. )
Ron: is not that concerned either way as long as an alternative
carl-daniel, peter, corey: do not like @ syntax but need to propose a
reasonable alternative (they have tried but not totally there yet)
which does not make the parser hard to modify.
ron
--
coreboot mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
