[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 55/55] dm: Update the of-platdata README for the new features

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On 23 June 2016 at 16:55, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:36:55PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> On 23 June 2016 at 14:04, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:33:36PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
>> >
>> >> Revise the content based on the v2 additions. This is kept as a separate
>> >> patch to avoid confusing those who have already reviewed the v1 series.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>> >> Suggested-by: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
>> > [snip]
>> >> +Converting of-platdata to a useful form
>> >> +---------------------------------------
>> >> +
>> >> +Of course it would be possible use the of-platdata directly in your driver
>> >> +whenever configuration information is required. However this meands that the
>> >
>> > "means"
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >> +The of-platdata struct contents is copied from the C structure data to the
>> >
>> > "is copied" -> "are copied"
>> >
>> > And thanks again for doing all of this!
>>
>> Obviously I still have a test to write, but other than that, what do
>> you think of this feature?
>
> Well, I like it.  But I'm also not great at spotting problems before we
> run into them sometimes.

We need to find someone with a crystal ball...

>
>> I put quite a bit of info in the caveats. The benefit is clear but it
>> is also a bit wonky - e.g. the structure / member naming. I'm really a
>> little bit nervous about it all. Do you think we can make sure it is
>> used sparingly?
>
> Given the number of places (it feels like) that run in to, or nearly run
> in to size limits today in SPL with tiny-printf enabled, no, I can't say
> that I think this will be used sparingly.  So is there anything we can
> do about the structure / member naming to make it less wonky?  Or just
> wait and see how things work out in the end when people start using it
> more?

The only option I think is to allow people to provide a config file to
map the compatible strings and property names to better names. To me
that did not seem worth it, since it is a pain to add this file. It
would need as much maintenance as changes to the device-tree binding.

My main concern is that people will use it to make SPL small when they
can actually afford the ~4-6KB size increase. But I agree we need to
be as efficient as possible and this helps bridge the gap with device
tree.

I'll do another spin in a week or two and we'll see how it looks. Let
me know if you have any comments.

Regards,
Simon