> -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Herring [mailto:robh@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 8:41 PM > To: David Gibson > Cc: Yuan, Linyu (NSB - CN/Shanghai); devicetree-spec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jon > Loeliger; Devicetree Compiler > Subject: Re: integer lost format from dtb to dts > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 5:30 AM, David Gibson > <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:49:46PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 4:15 AM, Yuan, Linyu (NSB - CN/Shanghai) > >> <linyu.yuan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Hi all, > >> > > >> > When use dtc to compile dtb to dts, always lost integer format, > >> > For example, clock frequency, normally it should not print as hexadecimal, > other issue from my view is integer lower than 255, normally should not print > as hexadecimal too. > >> > > >> > Any good method to solve this issue ? > >> > >> No. The dtb format doesn't have type information, nor formatting > >> information. > > > > Right. In the dtb format the properties are just bytestrings. Like > > any decompilation process the results won't exactly match the original > > input. > > > >> Adding this is certainly desired, > > > > That's not really true. We're looking at adding temporary type > > information so that -I dts -O dts will give a better approximation to > > the input, but that's just types, not formatting down to the level of > > decimal vs. hex representation. I don't think there's any reason to > > do that or any plans to do so. > > Right, I meant type info is desired. > > > Plus that's talking about adding type information as a temporary, and > > possibly translating it into a yaml based format. Actually putting > > the type information into the dtb is a different matter entirely. > > Yep. > > >> but no one has come up > >> with a way to add the information in a backwards compatible way. > > > > Adding type information to the dtb really doesn't make sense, the > > format simply isn't designed for it. Adding type information > > essentially means creating an entirely new device information format. > > If you wanted to add information in band then you are right. However, > we could possibly add an OOB table to the dtb of property offsets and > type information. Wouldn't be pretty, but would be backwards > compatible. I agree. > > Rob ��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�{���n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
