Hello,
On 8/20/20 3:33 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>>> And in the kernel we today only accept bindings in DT schema format
>>> (.yaml). Maybe do the same in the barebox and convert this binding to DT
>>> Schema format while at it.
>>
>> having make dtbs and dtbs_check as barebox make targets is on my todo list.
>> For now, I don't see the utility in having yaml bindings when they aren't
>> easily tested.
> You are coloring me confused here.
>
> .txt based bindings are not testable and syntax errros needs to be
> spotted manually. Futrthermore there is very little in description of
> the syntax.
>
> .yaml bindings are very simple to test - there is full infrastructure in
> the kernel. And there is semi formal specification of the syntax. And
> this is the syntax to be used for all new bindings.
I am not used to writing yaml bindings. I think the effort is better
invested, when I know the bindings are actively put to use by having
a target that can be run that automatically tests everything.
When we have that, I intend to migrate existing barebox-specific bindings
to YAML, so we can spot the errors.
> Tooling is simple - barebox tooling is not needed:
>
> cp foobar.yaml ${kernel}/Documentation/bindings/
> make dt_binding_check DT_SCHEMA_FILES=foobar.yaml
>
> I do not know what is the right approach in barebox, but as I wrote
> above the arguments confused me.
>
> Sam
>
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
