On 07/27/2013 10:01 PM, jonsmirl at gmail.com wrote:

On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Grant Likely [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Arend van Spriel [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Let's see how many people go and scream if I say this: Too bad .dts files
are not done using XML format as DT bindings could be described using XML
Schema.

Draft an example and show us how it would look!  :-)  There is
absolutely nothing preventing us from expressing a DT in XML format,
or even using XSLT to define DT schema while still using our current
.dts syntax. It would be trivial to do lossless translation between
.dts syntax and xml.

The problem that I have with XML and XSLT is that it is very verbose
and not entirely friendly to mere-mortals. However, I'm more than
willing to be proved wrong on this point.

I considered this approach a while ago and discarded it. It would work
but it is just too much of a Frankenstein monster.

Ah, but he is so cute. At least I do not think it is more monstrous as 
the bindings files. I just browsed through a couple of arm binding files 
as I felt challenged to come up with an example. I did not get the 
impression that there is some kind of template in place to get consitent 
bindings descriptions.

Much cleaner to modify dtc to take a schema as part of the compilation
process. The schema language itself has no requirement to look like
DTS syntax. Whoever wrote dtc probably has a favorite language that
would be good for writing schemas in.

Not sure if I can follow here. I guess you mean the dts compilation, 
right? There are tools freely available to validate XML files against 
XSD specification files. As an example libxml2 has support for it. I 
suspect it is not desired to have a dependency for DTC with an 
out-of-tree library, but it could be incorporated and have DTC spew the 
validation results.

Regards,
Arend