> > The machines I care for come with many optional and configurable parts. > > We select the basic machine type with command line option -M, and > > configure the rest with more command line options. I figure we want to > > keep supporting these options, at least for a while. > > > > I believe the best way to deal with that is start with a basic tree > > selected by -M, then modify it according to the other options. So, > > there's a fair amount of configuration tree mutation. > > Yeah, you're probably right. Although, in some cases the amount of > complex tree mutation can be cut down by thinking about things in the > right order. For example if you have a bunch of optional devices, > rather than adding them one by one (with all the required properties) > to the skeleton tree, you can instead have the skeleton tree be the > all-bells-and-whistles variant then delete the subtrees that aren't > present. libfdt even has a function to replace subtrees with nops > instead of eliding them, which means the offsets of other nodes won't > change.
I'm not so sure this is a vital feature. The current commandline options only provide the absolute bare minimum mutation for a basic PC machine, and don't even do that particularly well. I'm inclined to say we should punt significant machine config modification/generation to an external tool. Paul _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
