On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:12:55PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi David, > > On 1 May 2014 23:40, David Gibson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 09:13:51AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 22 March 2014 08:07, Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Given a set of nodes and properties, find the regions of the device tree > >> > which describe those parts. > >> > > >> > A test is provided which builds a tree while tracking where the regions > >> > should be, then calls fdt_first/next_region() to make sure that it agrees. > >> > > >> > Further tests will come as part of fdtgrep. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Have I sent this to the right place? Any comments? > > > > Sorry. I know you've resent this several times, and I've been > > procrastinating about it since forever. > > > > Basically, I'm just not convinced. For all your efforts to explain > > the rationale, it just seems like a really ad-hoc set of flags and > > conditions that doesn't seem to form a coherent whole. > > Are you referring to fdtgrep or the new library function? I'd be happy > enough getting the library function to start with in if there isn't > much need for the grep utility. The library function primarily. > > From the lack of other responses, I'm assuming there's not really > > anyone else who sees it as a compelling feature either. > > Is there normally a lot of mailing list traffic for new libfdt > features? This is used for verified boot in U-Boot for example. Hm, that's true I guess. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
pgpYWRuuLwbgW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
