> > That still leaves node and property deletion to cover. In keeping
> > with the above approach, I'd like to do that in the form of
> "negative
> > redefinitions" of properties or nodes. A neat syntax for
> that doesn't
> > immediately occur to be for that yet, though.
>
> hmmm. I'll think more about it too. I agree that a negative
> redefinition sounds like a reasonable approach. I do want the ability
> to drop nodes easily. It would make it easy to handle SoC or FPGA
> design variants.
We had a similar problem in the Freescale Embedded Hypervisor
to control the generation of guest device trees. We defined
several 'magic' properties that had special meaning in
the context of a node update.
delete-prop <stringlist> The value identifies one or more names of
properties that should be deleted from the
node.
delete-node <stringlist> The value identifies one or more names of
nodes that should be deleted. The node and
all descendants will be deleted.
We also had the need to prepend to a <stringlist> so that
compatible properties could be updated.
prepend-stringlist <stringlist> The value is a string list that
specifies on or more property name/value
pairs.
"prop-name1," "prop-value1,"
"prop-name2," "propvalue2,"
Each name/value pair consists of two
strings-the first is the name of the
property, the second is a string
to prepend to the property. If the
property does not already exist it will
be created.
Examples
/ {
parent {
child1 {
new-property = "stuff";
delete-prop = "foo", "bar";
};
};
};
/ {
parent {
child1 {
delete-node = "childA", "childB";
};
};
};
/ {
parent {
child1 {
prepend-stringlist = "compatible", "fsl,foo-bar";
};
};
};
Regards,
Stuart
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
