On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Grant Likely <grant.lik...@secretlab.ca> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com <jonsm...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Grant Likely <grant.lik...@secretlab.ca> >> wrote: >>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Arend van Spriel <ar...@broadcom.com> >>> wrote: >>>> 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. >> >> 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. > > Making it part of dtc is a required feature as far as I'm concerned. > Using XML/XSLT and dtc-integration are not mutually exclusive, but I > digress.
Oops, ignore the XSLT bit. XSLT isn't schema and has no bearing on the discussion of schema. Sorry for the noise. g. -- 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/
