On 03/09/2012 10:36 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: >>>> Ugh. so any value other than 1 returns false? I think that will surprise >>>> most people. >>>> >>>> I don't like this api or binding. If it is a bool property, then why isn't >>>> simply testing for the property existance sufficient? >>> no if you want to disable it >>> >>> if a bool is define in the dtsi and want to disable it int the dts >>> >>> if you we can do the the invert >>> >>> if !0 => true >>> >>> is-ok; => true >>> is-ok = <val != 0>; => true >>> is-ok = <0>; => false >> >> This is a failure of the dtc tool, not the binding. Accepting this binding >> means we have to live with it for a very long time. It needs to be fixed >> in dtc instead so that properties can be deleted instead of only modified. > I understand your idea but today if you put and value in the property it's > true. > > So is-ok = <0>; is true also which is illogical as in any language a boolean > is > true (1) or false (0). When I read the property I will understand false not > true
You could say similar things about is-ok = "no" or is-ok = "" or is-ok = "I'd rather you didn't"... it's expected that violating the binding may produce illogical results. > And I see no good way to add the "delete" in dtc. It shouldn't be that hard, just needs a new keyword and/or bit of syntax to express what you want it to do. -Scott _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
