I'm putting together a device tree for a new platform and when looking at the other trees everything is kind of chaotic in regards to the various subsystems.
Is the existing DT include mechanism powerful enough to describe generic fragments? And we're just missing the core fragments for generic SPI, MMC, audio, etc. In the XML world you can make schemas that describe what is legally allowed in an XML document. Device trees don't seem to any any kind of schema mechanism describing what is and isn't legal to put in a tree. Instead of recreating the entire world of schemas, has anyone looked at using XML schemas to define what is a valid device tree and then write a tool to validate the existing device trees? A neat feature of XML schemas is the ability to include fragment schemas. For example you'd have a base schema and then depending on the core processor bring in schema fragments for mmc, audio, spi, etc. I still can't figure out the right way to put audio into a device tree. Another example, the voltage-ranges attribute for a spi mmc slot. voltage-ranges = <3200 3400>; I had to go look at the source code for this attribute to determine what the legal ranges were. A validating schema would contain the legal ranges. Aren't the files in Documentation/devicetree/bindings really just schemas written in English with no automated way of checking the DTS files against them? -- Jon Smirl [email protected] _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
