On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 08:17:42AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On 10/01/2013 03:06 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote: > > + more DT maintainers folks > > > > Hi all, > > > > I know this is mostly boring user space code, but I was expecting a > > little bit of comments about at least the bindings syntax:-( > > > > I'd like to know if this is the right direction and if it worth pursuing > > in that direction. > > > > The idea was to have at least some base for further discussion during > > ARM KS 2013. > > > > I feel alone :-( > > > > If you have any comment, go ahead! > > Thanks for taking this on! > > This is interesting approach using the dts syntax, but I worry that the > validation will only be as good as the schema written and the review of > the schema. I think the schema needs to define the binding rather than > define the checks. Then the schema can feed the validation checks. This > format does not seem to me as easily being able to generate > documentation from the schema which I believe is one of the goals. I for > one don't care to review the documentation and the schema for every binding.
Hrm. I'm less optimistic about entirely replacing human-readable
bindings with machine-readable schemas. But I do think the schema
language needs to be substantially more flexible than the draft
presented here.
While I think a schema syntax which mirrors dts syntax makes a lot of
sense, actually defining schemas as "device" trees doesn't seem quite
right to me.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
pgps4GNtO_6_u.pgp
Description: PGP signature
