On Thu, Dec 26, 2024 at 12:10:04PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2024 at 7:54 AM David Gibson
> <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 09:00:14PM +0530, Ayush Singh wrote:
> > > On 16/12/24 11:39, David Gibson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 04:34:17PM +0100, Andreas Gnau wrote:
> > > > > If we add /append-property/, why not add /prepend-property/ as well? This is
> > > > > not only "nice for consistency", but it would also enable solving a problem
> > > > > where SoC compatible strings from dtsi [1] need to be repeated in board dts
> > > > > [2], because one cannot prepend to an existing property.
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > > dts-v1/;
> > > > > / {
> > > > > compatible = "soc-vendor,soc1234";
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > / {
> > > > > /prepend-property/ compatible = "board-vendor,board-xyz";
> > > > > };
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > So, this kind of demonstrates why I don't love /append-property/ as a
> > > > proposed syntax. The way I'd prefer to do this, ideally, is to allow
> > > > properties to be described as expressions. We already have integer
> > > > expressions that can be used in < > context, but I had intended to
> > > > extent to string and bytestring expressions - but I've never had the
> > > > time to implement that.
> > > >
> > > > Under that proposal, I'd expect appending to look something like:
> > > > str-prop = /previous-value/, "1";
> > > >
> > > > Prepending,
> > > > str-prop = "1", /previous-value/;
> > > >
> > > > .. and you could do both at once in the obvious way.
> > > >
> > > > The downside, of course, is that this is a much more complicated
> > > > proposal to implement. Parsing that syntax isn't too hard, but I
> > > > think doing it sensibly will need some structural changes in order to
> > > > evaluate property values as expressions, rather than simply
> > > > constructing the properties directly left to right. In particular the
> > > > interactions between expression syntax and within-property labels (and
> > > > other markers) could be fiddly to get right.
> > >
> > > Do you wish to allow `/previous-value/` to be repeated in the same property?
> > > Something like this:
> > >
> > > str-prop = "1", /previous-value/, "2", /previous-value/, "3";
> >
> > Yes, I'd expect that to work. Note that I don't particularly like the
> > name "/previous-value/" - that was just an example to demonstrate what
> > I had in mind. If anyone can think of a better or more succinct name
> > for this, please suggest it.
>
> Something like "/./"? (dot is also used in assembler for the current address)
> So e.g.
>
> str-prop = "1", /./, "2", /./, "3";
/./ might work.
> Or would that be too short? "/orig/"?
It's not too short but I think "/orig/" is a bad idea. In cases where
the value of a property is modified more than twice, this would refer
to the most recent previous value, not the "original" / first value
assigned. "/prev/" might work, though.
--
David Gibson (he or they) | 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
