On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 07:08:41PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:54:50PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 03:54:20PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > I would expect the schema to replace > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/* over time. I think the thing that > > > needs to be worked out here is how to add free form multi-line text. > > > I'm not convinced that's a realistic goal. As I see it, the > > fundamental difference between a binding document and a formal schema > > is that a binding defines both the syntax required of a node, and its > > semantics, whereas a schema defines only syntax - the semantics still > > need to be defined somewhere. > > So long as the schema lets you include free form text to define the > semantics I'm not sure there's an incompatibility there - the same > document can cover both. True, there's no reason the machine-readable schema and human-readable documentation can't be contained in the same file. -- 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:
pgphCtj4LPW8p.pgp
Description: PGP signature
