On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 08:17:42AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On 10/01/2013 03:06 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote: > > + more DT maintainers folks > > > > Hi all, > > > > I know this is mostly boring user space code, but I was expecting a > > little bit of comments about at least the bindings syntax:-( > > > > I'd like to know if this is the right direction and if it worth pursuing > > in that direction. > > > > The idea was to have at least some base for further discussion during > > ARM KS 2013. > > > > I feel alone :-( > > > > If you have any comment, go ahead! > > Thanks for taking this on! > > This is interesting approach using the dts syntax, but I worry that the > validation will only be as good as the schema written and the review of > the schema. I think the schema needs to define the binding rather than > define the checks. Then the schema can feed the validation checks. This > format does not seem to me as easily being able to generate > documentation from the schema which I believe is one of the goals. I for > one don't care to review the documentation and the schema for every binding. Hrm. I'm less optimistic about entirely replacing human-readable bindings with machine-readable schemas. But I do think the schema language needs to be substantially more flexible than the draft presented here. While I think a schema syntax which mirrors dts syntax makes a lot of sense, actually defining schemas as "device" trees doesn't seem quite right to me. -- 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:
pgpMSpXzj2TKf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
