On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:24:25 -0600, Rob Herring <robherri...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 02/08/2013 08:45 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 12:06:28 -0700, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> > > wrote: > >> From: Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com> > >> > >> Create cmd_dtc_cpp to run the C pre-processor on *.dts file before > >> passing them to dtc for final compilation. This allows the use of #define > >> and #include within the .dts file. > >> > >> Acked-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > >> Acked-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagn...@jcrosoft.com> > >> Acked-by: Michal Marek <mma...@suse.cz> > >> Acked-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandaga...@st.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com> > > > > I've applied this and was going to push it out, but I've just thought of > > a problem that could be a show stopper. Once a dtsp file includes a C > > header, the contents of that header become part of the Device Tree ABI. > > If someone changes that file (ie. to renumber a series of #defines) then > > that will break the binding. We need a way to protect against that. > > Someone changing a .h file may make the assumption that it is only > > kernel internal and won't realize that it has external implications. > > > > I'm thinking that any dts includes need to be treated in the same way as > > userspace headers. We could put them into include/uapi and piggy back on > > the protection already afforded by that directory, or come up with > > something new. Any thoughts? > > Also, we would never be able to separate the dts files from the kernel > tree without some separation.
Good point. They better be in a completely separate directory then. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
