Hello Rob, (I dropped other personal mails from CC - kept only the lists) On Tue, 2021-03-09 at 08:11 -0700, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 5:51 AM Matti Vaittinen > <matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello Rob, > > > > On Mon, 2021-03-08 at 10:39 -0700, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Mon, 08 Mar 2021 12:40:50 +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > > > > > > dtschema/dtc warnings/errors: > > > Unknown file referenced: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: > > > '/usr/local/lib/python3.8/dist- > > > packages/dtschema/schemas/regulator/rohm,bd71815-regulator.yaml' > > > > This bothers me slightly. The patch 04/15 should bring-in the > > rohm,bd71815-regulator.yaml. Does this error indicate that file is > > missing or is my $ref somehow invalid? > > Then it's simply a false positive. I usually check these and try to > only send the email if the dependency is not in the series so the > dependency is clear. It's a balance of replying quickly and my time > reviewing the errors. Oh, good to know. I was assuming I got it wrong once again... Thanks! Rest of the mail is further discussion why I wonder if yaml bindings are worth it - you can skip it if you're not in a mood for babbling ;) Best Regards Matti > > *** opinion follows - not sure if it just me but... *** > > > > I know I should probably keep my mouth shut but... I am more and > > more > > thinking that the yaml bindings are yet another 'excessive unit- > > test' > > type solution. Tooling which should "force doing things correctly" > > is > > eventually hindering development and causing the end result being > > sub- > > optimal. > > It's about validating DTS files actually do what the bindings say. > It's pretty clear that the free form text bindings left a lot of > things ambiguous. > > How would you propose we can check every property in a DTS file has a > definition (minimally of it's type)? Freeform text can simply never > do > that. True. But I am not at all sure that the benefit of verifying the .dts files programmatically exceeds cost (work + lost readability for humans + impact of increased "not that fun" work). Anyways, as I wrote - this is just my biased opinion. Other people may have different opinions :] > > I mean that creating binding docs takes way too much time from > > someone > > like me who is "yaml-illiterate". And when I eventually get yaml > > done - > > the end result is far less descriptive for human eyes than the > > "good > > old" free-text format would've been. I know one can add comments - > > but > > I don't see much of them in the binding docs... > > Because people do the minimum? I know. This is the very basic nature of most human beings. I think this must be accepted. And likelihood for doing bare minimum sky- rockets when people feel the work they do is dull/boring/not fun. And I just have a feeling that many who enjoy writing drivers find writing the yaml bindings quite not fun. (I have absolutely no statistics to back up this statement - it's just a feeling). Big question is how to get best results in this not-so-perfect world when we know that people are both lazy and make mistakes? I have kind of deja-vu here. I've seen many attempts of tightening mechanical checks to get rid of human errors. In my opinion it rarely works well. To pick few I've seen: - demand for 100 % UT test coverage. => lazy people started to avoid code changes => autogenerated test cases which assumed current code was correct and brought no value but incredible inertia to all changes. - demand for heavy(ish) RCA/EDA process when severe faults were fixed => lazy people started to mark severe faults as minor - demand for peculiar, hard to remember syntax for commit messages to automatically fill in different statistics/management data => lazy people started to commit all changes in same category (syntax they had memorized/had alias for). - demand for DT docs which can be verified => ... ? Common thing is that all of these have valid, good intention - but overhead of doing them exceeded the (visible) benefits and lazy people tried to get around of them / did bare minimum. And as a side impact - part of the work got more boring - which also has (bad) consequences. I am not surprized if people try skipping creating DT docs. Or if the people do bare minimum with the DT docs. > The only comments/description I object > to are duplicating generic descriptions of common properties. I know. And I don't think you are to blame here. > There's certainly lots of things we could do. There are tools which > generate pretty docs out of json-schema. Not sure how useful they > would be OOTB. But I simply don't have the bandwidth to look into > them. I can barely keep up with reviews... Yes. I understand this. And now I am just taking more of that time - sorry. I just gave an opinion (knowing it probably won't change anything - but at least I've told what I am afraid of). Thanks for the open discussion :) I appreciate it. And I do really admire the amount of effort you (have) put in this! I do also admire your skills here. And I absolutely respect your opinions what comes to how the DT should look like. I just see the usefulness of the bindings verification differently. I hope you don't find this as a personal attack.
