On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 10:59 AM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 11:42 PM David Gibson > <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 08:29:53PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 1:26 AM David Gibson > > > <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 08:22:54AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 2:19 AM David Gibson > > > > > <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 12:30:22PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > > YAML output was restricted to dts input as there are some dependencies > > > > > > > on source annotations which get lost with other input formats. With the > > > > > > > addition of markers by the checks, YAML output from dtb format becomes > > > > > > > more useful. > > Heh. Ok, but there's no reason you couldn't bundle a dtb->yaml > > preprocessor written in C (or Rust, or Go) with the rest of the > > validation tools. Then it would be colocated with the rest of the > > binding information and can be updated in lockstep. > > That's a great idea. I found some code on the internet written in C > that already does dtb->yaml conversion, so I can use that. Do you > think it is any good[1]? ;) > > > Or better yet, > > write a preprocessor that goes direct from dtb to Python native data > > types, avoiding the problems with YAML. > > That's exactly what the plugin did. Maybe the last patch should have > been removing YAML output. You seemed fairly lukewarm on the whole > thing, so it seemed like it was going to take more time than I had to > spend on it. > > Maybe using pylibfdt could work here though it doesn't already > unflatten the tree into dictionaries. Maybe that already exists > somewhere. Simon? dtoc in u-boot is one though it unpacks into custom classes rather than pure dict I need. But implementing unpacking was quite simple. The harder part seems to be the lack of any packaging for pylibfdt. Rob
