On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:55:33AM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote: [...]
if you don't want to type, things like this are possible but they have to depend on the order given:
dr_usb.mode = host; .phy_type = ulpi; esdhc;
however when automating/scripting concatenation of them, it's useful to not have to depend on their order:
dr_usb.mode = host; esdhc; dr_usb.phy_type = ulpi;
...so as you can see I've come up with the dot ('.') in order to eliminate the less familiar (and therefore more misleading) colon (':').
What do you think?
"dr_usb.mode = host; .phy_type = ulpi; esdhc;" <- that isn't obvious that .phy_type is a continuation of dr_usb. :-/
It's kind of more special format then the original...
Kim
p.s., your representation above is the best, but now it's starting to look like the frontend to a C compiler:
"dr_usb { mode = host; phy_type = ulpi; }; esdhc;"
I like it too: http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-May/051875.html
Wolfgang replied that we should keep things simple, and if we want something complicated we should use device-tree: http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-May/051886.html
Since hwconfig is designed to be *simple* hw configuration interface, I tend to agree with Wolfgang.
Technically we don't need hwconfig, it is only needed to make configuration easier for reference boards that have quite a lot of hw options. Hwconfig can be substituted by
# mw 0x... 0x... # manually modify some bcsrs # mw 0x... 0x... # manually modify pinmux # fdt addr ... # now manually fixup the device tree # fdt set ... ... # fdt mknode ... ...
In a final product you barely need the hwconfig stuff, because product boards only define things they use (and that's why we must keep things working without CONFIG_HWCONFIG).
Thanks,