Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for binary includes.

From: Jon Loeliger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:24:56 -0600

So, like, the other day Scott Wood mumbled:
> > 
> > Can I ask; what is the intended usage of such a thing?  How large
> > would a typical binary blob be?
> 
> I use it for embedding guest device trees in a hypervisor's device tree.

Why wouldn't we instead, say, extend the source sytax
to allow a sub-tree or an embedded tree, rather than
obscuring an opaque form of that guest device tree?

Thanks,
jdl