On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 7:00 PM, David Gibson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 11:49:21AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
>> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 12:16:30PM -0700, Anton Staaf wrote:
>> > > With this patch the following property assignment:
>> > >
>> > > property = <0x12345678 'a' '\r' 100>;
>> > >
>> > > is equivalent to:
>> > >
>> > > property = <0x12345678 0x00000061 0x0000000D 0x00000064>
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Anton Staaf <[email protected]>
>> >
>> > Acked-by: David Gibson <[email protected]>
>>
>> So, I *think* we want to wait until the question of size
>> is resolved some more, right? Or, take this in any event
>> as "without a type indicator they are all 32-bit values"?
>
> No this patch is fine to take without changing the cell size
> semantics. It's just that it becomes a lot more useful when we do get
> those.
Yup, I'm working on a size patch by the way. Any comments on my
previous post about it would be helpful. But in the mean time I'm
going ahead with a solution where the current cell size is stored in
the "struct data" type references are not allowed in cell lists of
size other than 32 bits.
Thanks,
Anton
> --
> David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
> david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
> | _way_ _around_!
> http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
>
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
