On 07/22/2013 02:57 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > On Monday 22 of July 2013 16:34:49 Jon Loeliger wrote:
>>> My idea is to implement compile time verification in dtc, so I guess it >>> will be more like the latter. Since dts is what dtc can already parse, >>> my plan is to keep the schemas in spirit to dts, just >>> modifying/extending it to allow specifying bindings with them, rather >>> than static values. > Things start to become fun when you get to bindings like regulators or > clocks, when part of the binding is defined on generic level (-supply, > clocks, clock-names properties) and remaining part is specific to device > (XXX in XXX-supply, count and order of clocks and clock-names, strings > allowed in clock-names property). This kind of inheritance is likely to be > the biggest troublemaker. It's good you mentioned inheritance here. I believe that's one of the key things. For example, the Tegra GPIO controller's binding is-a GPIO-controller, and is-an interrupt-controller, and I imagine any successful DT schema definition would very explicitly include that information. Likewise, other nodes may be is-a GPIO-client (many times, each parameterized with the property name that defines which GPIO you're talking abot), and also may be is-an interrupt-client (with a similar comment), etc. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
