[RFC 00/15] Device Tree schemas and validation

On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 08:17:42AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:

On 10/01/2013 03:06 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:

quoted

+ 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20131002/83f7e873/attachment.sig>