David Gibson wrote at Thursday, September 08, 2011 7:35 PM: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 11:32:11AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote: > > 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]> ... > > > > 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? > > I really don't want to make identifiers - which is essentially what > we're talking here - explicitly marked, on the basis of "be like C". > I believe they should be safe, as long as we don't attempt to > recognize them in property/nodename context.
Grant, As far as I understand the parser code, the define names aren't accepted where they'd cause conflicts with node names etc. I just tested using node names that matched names set up with /define/, and didn't see it cause any unexpected syntax errors. Jon, David, Does the change look good to go in? -- nvpublic _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
