On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 03:04:20PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 8/27/2015 10:23 PM, Matt Porter wrote: > > During the Device Tree microconference at Linux Plumbers 2015, we had > > a short discussion about how to improve DT Binding Documentation. A > > number of issues were raised (again, as these things have been > > discussed in the past) including: > > > > * Inconsistency between binding documents due to prose text > > format. > > * Inability to reliably machine read bindings for mass update > > or search. > > * Bit rot of bindings as new conventions are agreed upon but > > only new bindings are changed. > > > > Grant Likely probably summed up the issue best with "...as long as > > bindings are human readable, we'll have issues...". The context > > of that comment was, of course, regarding our current documents > > written in very inconsistent prose style. When the topic of needing > > the bindings in a rigid format was raised, there was general head > > nodding that this was needed. It was noted that this has been > > discussed many times before and nothing has been done. > > > > My proposed solution to the problem is to convert all DT bindings > > a rigid text markup format. In choosing a text markup language my > > requirements were: > > > > 1) Human readable > > 2) Well documented > > 3) Easy to translate to other data formats > > 4) Well supported by tools and libraries > > Thanks for taking this on! The proposal looks like a great start. > The requirements look good. > > > > After looking at a number of markup options, YAML stood out as the > > one that meets all of these requirements. The YAML syntax is adopted > > in many projects specifically because of the high level of readability. > > A comprehensive spec is at http://www.yaml.org/spec/1.2/spec.html. > > There's a number of tools to convert between YAML and other popular > > data formats such as JSON and XML. XML was cited by Behan Webster > > during the microconference as an important data format as the type > > of developers that may produce comprehensive DTS Binding validation > > tools will want to use XML. Every major scripting language has a > > high level binding to the low level libyaml C library to facilitate > > handling of YAML data files. > > > > One caveat with YAML is it does not tolerate tabs. Yes, I said it. > > No tabs! This can be managed with proper editor modes and also with > > helper scripts to strip tabs to aid in people passing planned > > checkpatch.pl checks that would run YAML DT Binding specific tag > > validators for new bindings. > > I'm just a casual user of some markup languages, nowhere near knowledgeable > or an expert, so will be listening to reasoned opinions on the choice of > YAML. But a quick look at the spec you referenced and the examples you > provided gives me some confidence that YAML will work. > > > > The scope of the initial YAML DT Binding format was specifically > > limited to supporting *only* the content we have in bindings today. > > The idea here is to propose and agree on something that will take > > us just a few steps in the right direction. If we move *all* current > > Yes, this is a great approach so we can start making reasonable progress. > (Caveat below.) > > > binding content to a machine parseable format, additional features > > can be added with more automation and scripting. As it stands today, > > because of the inconsistency of the wording of the files, we can't > > add a lot of new features to the content until we convert what we > > have today into a standard format. > > > > With that said, it should be noted that some new features such as > > "type" tags to indicate cell types could be added to support > > additional DTS validation beyond what the current content supports. > > Another possibility is adding "range" type information to validate > > the legal values for a cell. > > The caveat: I think we should look at some obvious features (such as > "type" that you mention) to make sure that YAML and the chosen > structuring will easily and effectively support the features. > > Thinking about how some features might be implemented led to comments > that I will make in replies to the other patches. > > I agree that we should not attempt to add the additional information > enabled by the new features if the information is not in the present > bindings. Adding the new information in a subsequent pass seems to be > a good strategy. Ok, I think Rob had a good point that we need to get the format for these additional pieces of information in place even if we don't populate them to start. Sounds like there's some agreement on this approach. > > > > > This series is broken up into three major parts: > > > > 1) The documentation defining the YAML DT binding format > > 2) A skeleton device binding example illustrating use of this format > > 3) Some real binding conversions (eeprom.txt, phy-bindings.txt, and > > ti-phy.txt > > > > As a proof of concept of what can be done with a proper machine > > readable DT binding source file, there's a simple markdown document > > generator at https://github.com/konsulko/dtgendoc. Also, to see > > actual output from the generator, the generated markdown from those > > bindings is viewable at https://github.com/konsulko/dtgendoc/wiki > > > > There's a lot of other possibilities for validation tools using > > only the data we have today in the bindings. In addition, Frank > > Rowand covered some DT debug techniques that would benefit from > > the binding documentation being 100% reliably searchable. > > > > I found it useful to see a side-by-side view of a converted doc > > versus the original content, so here's a screenshot of eeprom.txt > > vs. eeprom.yaml: > > https://github.com/konsulko/dtgendoc/wiki#eepromtxt-vs-eepromyaml > > This binding is your patch 3, but the side by side example you provide > makes it much easier to follow along, so I'll comment here. > > Part of the information about compatible got lost in the conversion. > The part that is lost is: > > If there is no specific driver for <manufacturer>, a generic > driver based on <type> is selected. > > I will discuss this a little more in response to patch 1, where I will > ask whether compatible should be treated differently than other > properties. So maybe any further discussion of this should be in > reply to that email. Ok, yes, this is an area the needs additional work as Rob pointed out with handling various AND and OR type constraints. I'll move discussion to that patch though. > > When we decide on a text markup format that is acceptable, then the > > next step is to convert all the bindings. That process would start > > with the complete set of generic bindings as they will be referenced > > by the actual device bindings. > > > > If the RFC wasn't explicit enough...comments welcome. > > > > -Matt > > > > Matt Porter (5): > > Documentation: dt-bindings: add documentation on new DT binding format > > Documentation: dt-bindings: add example DT binding document > > Documentation: dt-bindings: add YAML eeprom binding > > Documentation: dt-bindings: phy: add YAML generic PHY binding > > Documentation: dt-bindings: phy: add YAML TI PHY binding > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/dt-binding-format.txt | 106 +++++++++++++ > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom.yaml | 44 ++++++ > > .../devicetree/bindings/phy/phy-bindings.yaml | 89 +++++++++++ > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/ti-phy.yaml | 166 +++++++++++++++++++++ > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/skeleton.yaml | 98 ++++++++++++ > > 5 files changed, 503 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dt-binding-format.txt > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom.yaml > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/phy-bindings.yaml > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/ti-phy.yaml > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/skeleton.yaml > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
