On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 03:44:09PM +0100, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 10/25/2013 12:43 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 22:51:28 +0100, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> From: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> This is a very quick proof-of-concept re: how a DT schema checker might > >> look if written in C, and integrated into dtc. > > > > Thanks for looking at this. > > > > Very interesting. Certainly an expedient way to start checking schemas, > > and for certain bindings it may be the best approach. The downside is it > > forces a recompilation of DTC to bring in new bindings and it isn't a > > great meduim for mixing schema with documentation in the bindings. > > This approach would certainly require recompiling something. I threw the > code into dtc simply because it was the easiest container for the > demonstration. It could be a separate DT validation utility if we > wanted, although we'd need to split the DT parser from dtc into a > library to avoid code duplication. The resultant utility could be part > of the repo containing the DTs, so it didn't end up as a separate > package to manage. > > I think the additional documentation could be added as comments in the > validation functions, just like IIRC it was to be represented as > comments even in the .dts-based schema proposals. Fwiw, I've been starting to do some hacking on the checks code, with a view to making it accomodate the schema stuff better. Branch 'checking' on the kernel.org tree. In a state of flux, so expect rebases. -- 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
Attachment:
pgpbB1UQ8MO38.pgp
Description: PGP signature
