Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932304Ab2JJSkS (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:40:18 -0400 Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:37812 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751560Ab2JJSkQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:40:16 -0400 Message-ID: <5075C10C.1030205@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:40:12 -0600 From: Stephen Warren User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rob Herring CC: Jon Loeliger , Michal Marek , David Gibson , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Warren Subject: Re: dtc: import latest upstream dtc References: <1348867559-2495-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <5069C042.40209@gmail.com> <5069C11C.6040505@wwwdotorg.org> <5069D946.1060502@gmail.com> <5069E1F0.5070902@wwwdotorg.org> <50749441.8030307@wwwdotorg.org> <5075ABB8.103@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5075ABB8.103@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1650 Lines: 40 On 10/10/2012 11:09 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > On 10/09/2012 04:16 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 10/01/2012 12:39 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote: >>>> >>>> What more do you think needs discussion re: dtc+cpp? >>> >>> How not to abuse the ever-loving shit out of it? :-) >> >> Perhaps we can just handle this through the regular patch review >> process; I think it may be difficult to define and agree upon exactly >> what "abuse" means ahead of time, but it's probably going to be easy >> enough to recognize it when one sees it? > > Rather than repeating things over and over in reviews, we should > document at least rules we can easily agree on and then add to it when > people get "creative." Also, I can't keep up with every single binding > review as is, and this could just add another level of complexity to the > review. A few off the top of my head and from the thread discussion: > > - Headers must be self contained with no outside (i.e. libc, kernel, > etc.) header dependencies. > - No kernel kconfig option usage > - No gcc built-in define usage > - No unused items (i.e. externs, structs, etc.) > - No macro concatenation That seems to be potentially a very useful feature; I have no idea why we would ban that; it isn't banned in C code in the kernel is it? > - No macros for strings or property names Property names I can understand. Property values - I can perhaps see a use-case for... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/