On 07/25/2013 11:25 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> > wrote: ... >> On another related topic, something that may be useful for the DT >> bindings reviewer team is a basic checklist for new DT bindings. >> Something similar to Fedora's package review checklist. Perhaps also >> (yet another?) document on a bit of DT philosophy. If this sounds >> useful, I could try and take a stab at some basic initial version. > > Sounds reasonable. Starting with one of the existing ones instead of > from scratch is a reasonable approach. A checklist and a best > practices doc would come a long way.
Do you have a link to an existing check-list? I know there's plenty of best practices information out there to build on. >> We also need to decide (or just document) exactly what "describes the >> HW" means; see the thread on thermal limits, and consider the extension >> of describing hard/absolute thermal limits to describing use-cased base >> thermal profiles using the same schema, or not allowing that. > > Yes indeed. A basic binding need just specify what the specific > hardware IP is, if the rest of the configuration of the IP can be > determined at runtime through other means (i.e. by autoprobing). It's > stuff beyond that that gets very complicated. > > To talk semi-specifics: What about USB PHY tunings for a specific > board, I was thinking more about the slightly blurry line between representing HW and representing policy, but the example you gave certainly needs consideration too. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
