On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:09:27AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Stephen Warren <[email protected]> wrote: > > Stephen Warren wrote at Tuesday, August 30, 2011 3:30 PM: > >> You may define constants as follows: > >> > >> /define/ TWO 2; > >> /define/ FOUR 4; > >> /define/ OTHER FOUR; > >> > >> And properties may use these values as follows: > >> > >> foo = <1 TWO 3 FOUR 5>; > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <[email protected]> > > > > David, Jon, > > > > Does this seem reasonable? > > > > I think the syntax is simple enough it wouldn't interfere with any more > > advanced expression/function/... support in the future, and it could be > > easily extended to allow e.g.: > > > > /define/ FOO "BAR"; > > /define/ BAX [0af8dacb0]; > > ... > > This seems very reasonable to me, and very useful. From the syntax it > looks like lower case symbols are allowed also, which is fine with me. > > I hope that this can go into dtc as we would definitely use it.
What are the risks of symbol conflict with this approach? I'm concerned that a poorly chosen /define/ name will break parsing in non-obvious ways. Would it be better to have a every define reference to be explicit in the syntax? g. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
