Several reviewers agreed that DT_HAS_NODE_STATUS_OKAY(...) was an
undesirable API for the following reasons:
- it's inconsistent with the rest of the DT_NODE_HAS_FOO names
- DT_NODE_HAS_FOO_BAR_BAZ(node) was agreed upon as a shorthand
for macros which are equivalent to
DT_NODE_HAS_FOO(node) && DT_NODE_HAS_BAR(node) &&
- DT_NODE_HAS_BAZ(node), and DT_HAS_NODE_STATUS_OKAY is an odd duck
- DT_NODE_HAS_STATUS(..., okay) was viewed as more readable anyway
- it is seen as a somewhat aesthetically challenged name
Replace all users with DT_NODE_HAS_STATUS(..., okay), which is
semantically equivalent.
This is mostly done with sed, but a few remaining cases were done by
hand, along with whitespace, docs, and comment changes. These special
cases include the Nordic SOC static assert files.
Signed-off-by: Martí Bolívar <marti.bolivar@nordicsemi.no>
Rename DT_HAS_NODE to DT_HAS_NODE_STATUS_OKAY so the semantics are
clear. As going forward DT_HAS_NODE will report if a NODE exists
regardless of its status.
Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@linaro.org>
Replace DT_PHYS_RAM_ADDR and DT_RAM_SIZE with DT_REG_ADDR/DT_REG_SIZE
for the DT_CHOSEN(zephyr_sram) node.
Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@linaro.org>
Anas Nashif