On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 12:18:59PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote: > Hi David, > On 01/11/2016 03:45 AM, David Gibson wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 03:13:25PM +0000, Eric Auger wrote: > >> qemu_fdt_setprop self-exists in case of error hence no need to check > >> the returned value. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.au...@linaro.org> > > > > This change is fine, but in general I'm disinclined to invest too much > > in the qemu interfaces for manipulating flattened trees. > > > > I think our device tree manipulation in qemu is now complicated enough > > that we should move towards using an unflattened (i.e. pointer based) > > DT representation inside qemu, which is generally more suitable for > > complex manipulation. > OK. Is there any user-space library available for un-flattened tree > manipulation? I only found references to kernel unflattened tree > manipulations (drivers/of/fdt.c, include/linux/of.h) and dtc flattree.c.
Not that I'm aware of. I've sometimes thought of making one as
another companion project to dtc. Or it would be reasonably
straightforward to build a qemu specific one using qemu's existing
list routines.
> Besides the indicated direction do I understand correctly that you do
> not reject the series?
Yes, that's correct. I think working with unflattened trees is
something we should head towards somewhere in the future, but that's
certainly not a reason to hold up real improvements based on the
existing flattened tree code.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
