On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Peter Stuge peter@stuge.se wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 01:09:41AM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
an array called valid_spd_device
Should we put fake SPD in the dts? It is, after all, hardware description. Or no?
We talked about this a lot about 15 months ago. It's a harder question than it seems at first.
The problem is that we have to be careful to take the 'everything in dts' only as far as it makes sense. Right now, we generate code from the dts to C structs and do a lot of build-time checking. As we add more things to dts, we should add more code generation. We do not want to have a situation where we're doing this at runtime: spdval = value("/dram/spd/tpr"); because there is lots of build time checking we lose (e.g. somebody specifies a totally wacky 32-bit number for what is a u8 value).
I like the dts but I'm not sure we want every single thing in it. But I'm not claiming that the balance is perfect .
thanks
ron