On 04/20/18 18:28, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 4:00 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Rob, >> >> Thanks for the example. It was a good starting tutorial of sorts for me >> to understand the format a bit. >> >> >> On 04/18/18 15:29, Rob Herring wrote: >>> The current DT binding documentation format of freeform text is painful >>> to write, review, validate and maintain. >>> >>> This is just an example of what a binding in the schema format looks >>> like. It's using jsonschema vocabulary in a YAML encoded document. Using >>> jsonschema gives us access to existing tooling. A YAML encoding gives us >>> something easy to edit. >>> >>> This example is just the tip of the iceberg, but it the part most >>> developers writing bindings will interact with. Backing all this up >>> are meta-schema (to validate the binding schemas), some DT core schema, >>> YAML encoded DT output with dtc, and a small number of python scripts to >>> run validation. The gory details including how to run end-to-end >>> validation can be found here: >>> >>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree-spec/msg00649.html >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> Cc list, >>> You all review and/or write lots of binding documents. I'd like some feedback >>> on the format. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Rob >>> >>> .../devicetree/bindings/example-schema.yaml | 149 +++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 149 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/example-schema.yaml >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/example-schema.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/example-schema.yaml >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 000000000000..fe0a3bd1668e >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/example-schema.yaml >> >> I'm guessing by the path name that this is in the Linux kernel source tree. > > Yes, well, my kernel tree. Most of the work still lives here: > > https://github.com/robherring/yaml-bindings/ > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ >>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause >> >> If in the Linux kernel source tree, then allow gpl-v2 as a possible license. > > Why? BSD is compatible. The license of the above repo is all BSD. I said __if__ in the Linux kernel source tree. As my other comments indicated, I wasn't sure if this was intended to end up in the Linux kernel source tree. __If__ in the Linux kernel source tree then it would be dual licensed, correct? And thus the tag would reflect that? > Of course there's all the existing docs which default to GPLv2 and > we'll probably have to maintain that. > < snip > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree-spec" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
