[sending to you directly because I am no longer on kernel list and you
respond to the dtschema queries anyway, if you prefer I will re-join
kernel list and re-send to whole list]
Reviving this thread now that we have some experience with dt-schema.
Our experience with both dtc and the dt-schema scripts is there doesn't
seem to be any real distinction between errors and warnings.
Below are some examples.
This is from dt-validate: : pinctrl@f100000: 'width' is a required
property
This is from dtc: : Warning (reg_format): /soc/pinctrl@f100000:reg:
property has invalid length (8 bytes) (#address-cells == 2, #size-cells
== 1)
In both cases neither tool returned an error code to the shell (echo $?
= 0)
dtc will error with a syntax problem, but that seems to be it.
Is this how the kernel community prefers these tools to work?
Our concern is more with the dtschema scripts so we can use this to
break the build and force the engineer to fix either the .yaml or .dtsi
file.
Before we dive into the dtschema scripts we wanted to understand the
philosophy behind the design decisions.
On 2020-11-30 11:02, Rob Herring wrote:
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 2:13 PM <mturney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Folks,
I am advocating use of dt-schema project internally to validate DTS
files.
I should add that our use is outside kernel tree on proprietary
project.
One of the push-backs I'm getting from the management chain is along
the
lines of...
Who is this Rob Herring guy and why should we use a project that is
only
sourced on https://github.com/robherring/dt-schema?
I wouldn't trust him...
That's the wrong repo though:
https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema
(Unfortunately, GH's forks is misleading as the 'root' repo has
changed.)
If the kernel project is using it, why isn't kernel.org hosting the
project?
It's not a kernel project. That's why devicetree.org hosts it.
What is kernel plan if Rob walks away from the project, is this going
to
wither away and die?
IMO, only if folks don't find validation valuable or a better
implementation comes along.
There are more, but the above pseudo-quotes grab the gist of the
management complaints.
Q.1) Is there a plan for the kernel project to suck dt-schema into its
orbit?
No, the 'plan' (more like desire) is more in the opposite direction.
Move more of DT (bindings and dts files) out of the kernel for other
projects to use. For now, we have the 'devicetree-rebasing' tree which
is just the DT bits from the kernel tree.
Q.2) How many active maintainers are there for dt-schema?
Mostly just me. Maxime Ripard is also one. Others could be if the need
arose.
Q.3) How do I respond to the above types of complaints?
jsonschema python module which is our main dependency is also just a
single maintainer. So is dtc. Maybe not what you want to highlight.
Rob
