On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 3:03 PM, John Rigby <john.ri...@linaro.org> wrote: > Kumar, Grant: > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Grant Likely <grant.lik...@secretlab.ca> > wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 5:36 PM, John Rigby <jcri...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Kumar Gala <ga...@kernel.crashing.org> >>> wrote: >>>> > > .... > >>>> >>>> The problem w/libfdt is that use of 'offsets' to get to nodes can be >>>> problematic if the offset changes while manipulating it. There are ways >>>> around thus but a number of functions we do would benefit from a more live >>>> tree. >> >> This is actually a really good point. Offsets changing under your >> feet is just asking for bugs. I could see this as being a legitimate >> justification for having a live tree model in libfdt and the ability >> to transition between the live and flat representations. I was >> against this when we chatted on IRC the other day as it sounds like >> overkill, but this is a legitimate concern. dtc has a live tree >> representation that could probably be migrated into libfdt. >> > > I don't think I fully understood Kumar's question when he first sent > it. Now I want to understand. Are these gotcha's and workaround's > with libfdt documented anywhere? If not then I would be willing to > write up something. But I'll need some pointers to get me started. > In the longer term how much work do you think it would be to make > libfdt's internal representation dynamic? I would be willing spend > some time on this if the consensus is that it is worth having.
libfdt's implementation is *by design* static so that is can be easily supported in minimal firmwares. The live tree would be an additional model in addition to the flattree routines. Take a look in the dtc repo to see how the the device tree compiler uses it. g. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
