[RFC 3/4] dtoc: add support for generate stuct udevice_id
walter.lozano at collabora.com
Tue Jul 7 16:08:42 CEST 2020
On 6/7/20 16:21, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Walter,
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 15:12, Walter Lozano <walter.lozano at collabora.com> wrote:
>> Based on several reports there is an increasing concern in the impact
>> of adding additional features to drivers based on compatible strings.
>> A good example of this situation is found in .
>> In order to reduce this impact and as an initial step for further
>> reduction, propose a new way to declare compatible strings, which allows
>> to only include the useful ones.
> What are the useful ones?
The useful ones would be those that are used by the selected DTB by the
current configuration. The idea of this patch is to declare all the
possible compatible strings in a way that dtoc can generate code for
only those which are going to be used, and in this way avoid lots of
#ifdef like the ones shows in
>> The idea is to define compatible strings in a way to be easily parsed by
>> dtoc, which will be responsible to build struct udevice_id  based on
>> the compatible strings present in the dtb.
>> Additional features can be easily added, such as define constants
>> depending on the presence of compatible strings, which allows to enable
>> code blocks only in such cases without the need of adding additional
>> configuration options.
>>  http://firstname.lastname@example.org/
>> Signed-off-by: Walter Lozano <walter.lozano at collabora.com>
>> tools/dtoc/dtb_platdata.py | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
> I think dtoc should be able to parse the compatible strings as they
> are today - e.g. see the tiny-dm stuff.
Yes, I agree. My idea is that dtoc parses compatible strings as they are
today but also in this new way. The reason for this is to allow dtoc to
generate the code to include the useful compatible strings. Of course,
this only makes sense if the idea of generating the compatible string
associated code is accepted.
What do you think?
More information about the U-Boot