David Gibson wrote:
>> node {
>> prop = /incbin/("path/to/data");
>> };
>>
>> node {
>> prop = /incbin/("path/to/data", 8, 16);
>> };
>
> I still dislike the syntax, but haven't thought of a better one yet.
> There are some issues with the implementation too, but I've been a bit
> too busy with ePAPR stuff to review properly.
I'm OK with the syntax, but whatever-ish.
Would these be better?:
prop = /call/(incbin, "path/to/data", 17, 23);
prop = /call[incbin]/("path/to/data");
prop = /call incbin/("path/to/data", 12, 12+10);
What is the aspect of the syntax that you don't like?
I think we essentially need to stick in the /.../ realm
to be consistent with the other non-standard names being
used, like /include/.
I can see a generalized form that allows other pre-defined
or user-defined "functions" to be introduced and called
or used in a similar way:
prop = <(22 + /fibonacci/(7)) 1000>;
prop = /directoryof/("/path/to/some/file.doc");
interrupt-map = /pci_int_map/(8000, 2, 14);
or whatever. We can paint this bikeshed for a long time
if we need to. Or, we can get down to some serious issue
if there are any. Are there?
jdl
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
