> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 01:54:30PM -0800, Stephen Warren wrote: > > John, David, > > > > What can we do to reach consensus on expanding dtc to handle named > > constants, or in general any future direction to extend the syntax with > > expressions etc.? > > Hrm, so, I'm not at all keen to add a named constant syntax without at > least having an outline of what a future macro/function syntax would > look like.
Which is where I thought it was left earlier...? :-) And it's not just what the macro/function syntax will look like, but also how these will play into a more generalized expression handling mechanism. Defining something one-off now that doesn't fit well into a long term plan is less than ideal. Yes, I know that is tantamount to requiring the whole, larger picture be solved first. But Dave is right -- at least an outline of the direction. Seriously, the lexical problems can form some of the nastiest gotchas if we're not careful from the onset. > The latter is almost certain to permit the former as a subcase, and > I'd really rather not end up with two different syntaxes for > constants. Exactly. > Unfortunately, much as I'd like to get all these extended features > into dtc, Agreed.... > > Will either of you be attending Linaro Connect or ELC 2012 in February > > by any chance? We could get together and talk this through in person if > > you are... > > Not for me, I'm afraid. Only if they are in Austin. :-) Which is to say "Sorry, no." jdl _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
