On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 2:39 AM Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> You forgot linux-amlogic in CC...
>
> On 03/12/2018 22:32, Rob Herring wrote:
> > Convert Amlogic SoC bindings to DT schema format using json-schema.
> >
> > Cc: Carlo Caione <carlo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
[...]
> > + - items:
> > + - enum:
> > + - amlogic,s400
> > + - const: amlogic,a113d
> > + - const: amlogic,meson-axg
> > + - items:
> > + - enum:
> > + - amlogic,u200
> > + - const: amlogic,g12a
>
> but all this feels wrong for me.
>
> First of all, this yaml description is not human friendly and not intuitive at all,
> and secondly with this conversion we loose all the comments about the SoC family relationship
> with the compatible strings !
>
> I really understand the point to have automated verification, but really it's a pain to read
> (I can't imagine newcomers... the actual DT bindings are already hard to read...) and
> I feel it will be a real pain to write !
What do you suggest that would be easier? Is it the YAML itself or the
json-schema vocabulary? For the former, we could use {} and [] to make
things more json style. But I imagine it is the latter.
There is some learning curve for json-schema and is certainly a
concern I have, but there would be a learning curve for anything. Our
choices are use some existing schema language or invent one. All the
previous efforts (there's been about 5 since 2013) have been inventing
one, and they've not gone far. There will be far few resources
available to train people with if we do something custom.
> Can't we mix an "humam text" with a "yaml" part on a same document ? we are in 2018 (nearly 2019),
> and it should be easy to extract a yaml description from a text document without pain and
> keep all the human description, no ?
Yes. Please go look at the annotated example in patch 2.
> What will be the case for all the bindings with ASCII art to describe the architecture of the
> HW ? will you simply drop it to replace it with cold yaml description ?
No, you can have literal blocks and/or comments with however much
description you like. In fact, there's some notion to write the
descriptions in sphinx and extract them to generate documentation, but
that's a ways off. That's just the extent of what is possible.
Rob
