On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 04:21:44PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > + old_node->srcpos = srcpos_copy_all(new_node_begin_srcpos);
> >
> > This doesn't seem right. Replacing the old position with the new
> > makes sense for indivudal properties where the whole value is also
> > replaced. But for nodes we really need to track both locations.
> >
> > I think the extra complexity here is why I didn't add this tracking
> > earlier.
>
> I have the following example:
>
> /dts-v1/;
>
> / {
> #address-cells = < 1 >;
> #size-cells = < 1 >;
>
> tree_1: soc@0 {
> reg = <0x0 0x0>;
> };
>
> foo: foo_node {
> prop_1: added-prop = <0x99>;
> };
>
> bar_node {
> added-prop = <0x77>;
> };
>
> };
>
> /include/ "test_b1.dts"
> /include/ "test_c1.dts"
>
> -------------------
>
> Then test_b1.dts and test_c1.dts are both /include/ "test_d.dts". And
> test_d.dts is:
>
> / {
> foo_node {
> added-prop = <0x1 0x2 0x3>;
> };
>
> foo_node {
> added-prop = <0x1 0x2 0x3>;
> };
>
> bar: bar_node {
> added-prop = <0x5>;
> };
> };
>
> ----------
>
> The point of the example is that via the includes there are tw ways to
> reach test_d.dts.
>
> Accordingly, by accumulating a list of positions in merge_nodes, I end up with:
>
> /dts-v1/;
>
> / { /* tests/test_d.dts:1, tests/test_d.dts:1, tests/test_a.dts:10 */
> #address-cells = <0x1>; /* tests/test_a.dts:11 */
> #size-cells = <0x1>; /* tests/test_a.dts:12 */
>
> tree_1: soc@0 { /* tests/test_a.dts:14 */
> reg = <0x0 0x0>; /* tests/test_a.dts:15 */
> }; /* tests/test_a.dts:16 */
>
> foo: foo_node { /* tests/test_d.dts:6, tests/test_d.dts:2, tests/test_d.dts:6, tests/test_d.dts:2, tests/test_a.dts:18 */
> prop_1: added-prop = <0x1 0x2 0x3>; /* tests/test_d.dts:7 */
> }; /* tests/test_d.dts:8, tests/test_d.dts:4, tests/test_d.dts:8, tests/test_d.dts:4, tests/test_a.dts:20 */
>
> bar: bar_node { /* tests/test_d.dts:10, tests/test_d.dts:10, tests/test_a.dts:22 */
> added-prop = <0x5>; /* tests/test_d.dts:11 */
> }; /* tests/test_d.dts:12, tests/test_d.dts:12, tests/test_a.dts:24 */
> }; /* tests/test_d.dts:13, tests/test_d.dts:13, tests/test_a.dts:26 */
>
> --------
>
> For example, in the last line, we see tests/test_d.dts:13 twice, because it
> is merged in twice. Is this what is wanted? Should it be there only once?
> Should there be some indication on how tests/test_d.dts:13 is reached?
> This is a fake example, but I saw some examples with duplicated positions
> in the Linux kernel code.
Right, that's ugly, but it's not that easy to fix. Really we'd need
to merge/overlap each element in the list to accumulate them. Going
back to the original proposal isn't a solution though because of cases
like this, which will be much more common that duplicated includes:
/ {
foo {
compatible = "...";
reg = < .. >;
ranges = < ... >;
lots = ...;
of = ...;
other = ...;
properties = ...;
};
}
&{/foo} {
one-tiny-change = "yes";
};
The original proposal would annotate the output with *only* the
location of the one-tiny-change, which is extremely misleading. Much
worse than duplicated locations.
--
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:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
