On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 08:55:10 -0700, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: > 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.
+1 -- 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/
