On 22:16 Mon 12 Mar , Grant Likely wrote: > On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 04:17:39 +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 14:39 Mon 12 Mar , Scott Wood wrote: > > > 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. > > today is most of the binding people use a number whe the want to be able to > > delete it and it's the same in most of the promgramming language > > It isn't yet a big pain point, so there isn't time pressure here. Fixing the > tool > is the better solution, and since the kernel carries a copy of the tool we > don't > need to worry about adding a feature that isn't available by the dtc packaged > by > a distribution. > > Fixing the tool is the correct thing to do. I don't like it but ok
Can I get the ack on it and apply via my tree I've more tan 10 patches pending because of this Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
